Tuesday, September 30, 2014

At UN After Herve Ladsous Blocks Press Filming at Stakeout, Return of the UN Censorship Alliance: UNCA, Reuters, UN Spokesman


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 30, video here -- When UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous arrived at the General Assembly stakeout on September 27 to try to do his question and answer on Mali early as he did on South Sudan, without the Press present, it didn't work.Video here. He blocked Inner City Press' camera with a file folder then walked away, canceling the public stakeout and summoning friendly media including Reuters with him. 
  On September 30 Reuters' bureau chief continued on with Ladsous despite or because of the censorship issues raised. So too the head of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance, even while the Free UN Coalition for Access publicly raised the range of issues on which press access is in decline, here. 
  Back on September 29, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, if the UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon thinks it appropriate for an Under Secretary General to engage in censorship. Dujarric said he hadn't seen the video. It's here, and the Q&A with Dujarric is hereUN transcript:
Inner City Press: I had a couple DKPO questions. But this one is more fundamental. I wanted to know what the position of UN is on an Under-Secretary-General basically blocking a camera that’s filming from an entirely legal stakeout position which seems to be within the definition of kinda censorship. Why didn’t Mr. Ladsous in fact hold the stakeout on Mali on Saturday?
Spokesman Dujarric: I can look into it. I think there was a couple of scheduling issues. I can look into it.
Inner City Press: On tape he came up and put a file folder in front of a camera to stop it from filming.
Spokesman Duujarric: I’ll look into it. I’m not aware of the incident.
   Dujarric said there were "a couple of scheduling issues." But at least two wire services reported Ladsous' privatized spin without noting the censorship that took place right in front of them. If they censor this, what else is missing in their reports?
Inner City Press: I have two press freedom questions. In Sri Lanka, there has been a meeting of journalists to meet about digital security and the meeting was broken up, as it has been before, by the Government. And people say that the Government believes that this attempt to encrypt journalist meetings is in some way related to the UN Human Rights Council probe. So, who is on the ground there to respond? What is the UN's response to the Government breaking up meetings of journalists in this way?
Spokesman Dujarric: There is a UN country team. I have not seen anything from them; but, obviously, the Secretary-General's position on the need to preserve and guard press freedom has been often stated
Inner City Press / FUNCA: And this is one, and I actually asked it yesterday, so maybe you will have something on it. It's a little less… but since it happened in the building, I will ask you about it, the holding up by an Under-Secretary-General of a file folder to block the filming from a totally legitimate stakeout position, what is the UN's position on that?
Spokesman Dujarric: I think your linking of the two incidents may be a bit of a stretch. My understanding is that he was not blocking the UNTV stakeout, the UNTV stakeout camp.
Inner City Press: That is not what I asked. I'm saying if a correspondent is filming from the stakeout, can an Under-Secretary-General walk over and cover the camera with a file folder?
Spokesman Dujarric: I hear you. I have nothing to add.
  While Dujarric may be fine with Ladsous blocking a Press camera, it is censorship. Not only the Reuters' bureau chief, himself a censor (here) but the head of the UN Correspondents Association on September 30 cavorted with Ladsous. This is how it became the UN's Censorship Alliance, and why the UN continues to decay. The Free UN Coalition for Access is opposing these insider games: watch the FUNCA site, andfeed.

  In English Ladsous spun, "UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous told reporters later on Saturday that with the presence of French forces greatly reduced in the region, UN peacekeeping forces have to take a more dynamic stance and go in search of the attackers. 'We can't be sitting ducks,' he said."
  In French Ladsous spun, "'Je crois que c'est incontestable: les terroristes et les jihadistes, et sans doute aussi les trafiquants, ont repris du poil de la bête,' dans le nord du Mali, a déclaré Hervé Ladsous à des journalistes, jugeant 'intolérables' les attaques perpétrées contre les Casques bleus."
  Why couldn't he say this at the UNTV stakeout and take questions? What does it say about those who went to Ladsous' privatized spin-zone, which he began here, with Reuters, Voice of America and AFP? Old video here.
   As Ladsous stood at the stakeout, Inner City Press filmed as it did on September 26 when Ladsous refused to answer basic Press questions about his missions in Central African Republic and Golan. 
  Ladsous demanded, What are you going to do with this? He and a staffer tried to block the filming with file folders. Then he got UN Media Accreditation to ask Inner City Press to put down the camera and stop filming. But this is the stakeout. The Free UN Coalition for Accessdefends the rights to cover the UN. (The old UN Correspondents Association has partnered with Ladsous, first along with Agence France Presse and then further.)
   Ladsous and one of his "publicity" staffers tried to block the filming with file folders. Video here. Finally Ladsous walked away with his team including the Reuters correspondent who has himself engaged in censorship, telling Google to remove from Search his "for the record" complaint to UN Media Accreditation, claiming it is copyrighted. It is a strange position from a media that claims exclusive leaks. 
   After Ladsous stormed off, two of his staffers returned to say that the stakeout still might happen. But at 2:42 pm, an hour and forty-two minutes after it was supposed to happen, the UN said it was canceled - but not why.

   Before UN Peacekeeping held its September 26 meeting about the Central African Republic, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Uganda deciding not to send its troops as peacekeepers to the MINUSCA mission, under Herve Ladsous.
Dujarric said he would try to get an answer, but none was sent six hours later. So when Herve Ladsous, the fourth French chief of UN Peacekeeping in a row, came to the General Assembly stakeout past 6 pm on September 26, Inner City Press several times put the question to him: What about the Ugandans? Video here.
  Ladsous made his opening statement only in French, then ignored the Press question in English about Uganda pulling out of his peacekeeping mission, at the same time that the Philippines is pulling out of Ladsous' mission in the Golan Heights after he ordered their troops to surrender to the Al Nursa Front extremist group, which still has their UN Peacekeeping vehicles, weapons and uniforms.
Instead, Ladsous pointed at Agence France Presse, which previously on Ladsous' behalf filed complaints against Inner City Press, including through UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance. 
  The first time was when Inner City Press reported that Ladsous was by no means the first choice to replace Alain Le Roy atop peacekeeping, but was deposited into the job after the UN decided that the first choice, Jerome Bonnafont, was too flashy. So they got Ladsous.
Ladsous on September 26 proceeded to brag about new countries coming into UN Peacekeeping, singling out Sweden. Inner City Press once again asked, what about Uganda pulling out of the CAR mission, and added, what about the Filipinos pulling out of his mission in the Golan? Video here.
Ladsous as has become his practice - compilation hereUK coverage here - refused to answer and walked away with two of his aides. They looked back over their shoulders as they went up in the elevator.

How can a UN official get (over) paid but answer no critical questions? How can an official under whose watch the Darfur mission has covered up attacks on civilians, and who has ordered at least two countries' peacekeepers to surrender to terrorists, keep his job? 
  The questioning is spreading and one would think would come to a head in the upcoming review of peacekeeping, which Inner City Press has heard and reported will be headed by Louise Arbour. The new Free UN Coalition for Access asserts that UN Under Secretaries General should answer media questions, and there should be accounability. We'll see.

 
  

As UN Spreads Moroccan Law Banning Preachers Who Are Not Government Trained, US Cheers Despite First Amendment to US Constitution


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- Morocco was celebrated in the September 30 session of UN Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee, at which the United States spoke, and positively. But is the UN promoting laws that violate the US Constitution?
Morocco has developed a strategy to prevent the abuse of religion to justify and incite terrorist violence and is now sharing it with the world. An institute has been established in the Kingdom where religious teachers undergo mandatory training before they start preaching in public. Jean-Paul Laborde, Executive Director of the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) and Assistant Secretary-General hailed the dissemination of these teachings also called the 'Moroccan Experience.'”
Inner City Press went to the UN Security Council stakeout and asked Morocco's speaker, and a person beside him who seemed to be an interpreter, if this doesn't violate the US Constitution's freedom of religion clause -- how can exercise of religion be so controlled by a government? How could the UN be propagating this model, with the US cheering it on?
The Moroccan speaker gave a long answer in Arabic, which was then not translated. Inner City Press has submitted to the Moroccan Mission to the UN this question-cluster, in English: is it 
“true that in Morocco a person cannot preach before mandatory training before they start preaching in public, and if so, how this relates to provisions like those in the US Constitution saying that the free exercise of religion cannot be controlled or impacted by government? Also, whether new laws against foreign fighters, traveling for terrorism, can be abused given the terrorism is not defined and some countries may use their laws against dissidents and political opponents?”
Watch this site.

 
  

In DC After Shots Fired in Ethiopia Embassy Compound, Immunity Questions Raised at US State Department


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 30, more here -- Fifty five days after bodyguards of Democratic Republic of the Congo president Joseph Kabila beat up protesters in Washington but were not charged, only told to leave the country, on September 29 shots were fired in the compound of Ethiopia's Embassy in Washington, video here and embedded below.
  In the video, the man shooting the gun retreats into the embassy, while protesters remain outside, taking down the flag. So is the incident covered by diplomatic immunity?
  The question arose at the US State Department's briefing on Septembre 30, two hours after US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power had told reporters about US meetings at the highest level with Ethiopia. What impact would those relations have?
  Inner City Press earlier today reported on the US' court filing supporting immunity or impunity for the United Nations for having brought cholera to Haiti, click here for that.

   These questions of immunity keep arising. Back in August, an assault with a chair reportedly occurred at the residence of the Ambassador of Equatorial Guinea in the Arlington suburb of Washington.
  Due to diplomatic immunity, no arrest was made. ARLnow.comreports that 
Police were called to the home of Ambassador Ruben Maye Nsue Mangue after a female 911 caller reported that “there’s someone going crazy at her house” and a man “hit her in the head with a chair,” according to scanner traffic.
“I’ve been there before,” said a responding officer. “There have been previous calls from this address.” The female victim was struck “several times,” police said. Paramedics transported her to Virginia Hospital Center with a head wound, but no arrests were made.
“The subject has full diplomatic immunity and was not arrested,” Arlington County Police said in a crime report today. Police said the assault was “domestic” in nature but declined to reveal the identity of the suspect. “We won’t go in to those details at this time,” ACPD spokesman Dustin Sternbeck told ARLnow.com. “The State Department was notified by our officers and it’s in their hands at this point.”
   While outrageous, this also strikes some as contrary for example to how India's diplomat Devyani Khobragade was treated, compared with others. We'll have more on this.
   On the DRC, US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on August 8 said:
"We are troubled by the attacks against several protesters by members of the official delegation from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  It was Wednesday evening.  Take the right to freedom of expression very seriously, and violence against peaceful protesters is totally unacceptable.  We communicated our concern to the delegation in the strongest possible terms.  We requested waivers of immunity to permit those involved to face prosecution, and if such waivers were not issued, we required that the immediate departure from the country of the individuals involved.  They did not waive immunity and the individuals involved left the country on Thursday."

 So amid the speeches in the Security Council on Thursday, August 7, officials from the DRC were leaving the US after attacking protesters and refusing to waive immunity.
   On August 7 in New York, Kobler said it had been transparent, than when the UN Security Council's sanctions committee denied the waiver requested by Herve Ladsous, the FDLR leader was returned "to the bush."
  Inner City Press asked, isn't he subject to an arrest warrant in Rwanda? Kobler said he was unaware of that.
  On the mere two convictions for the 130 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova in November 2012, Kobler said the legal process was OK --video here -- but that the investigation was not sufficient.
  The third Press questions, which Kobler did not answer, concerned the rehabilitation of General Amisi after a failure to investigate the charges against him. 

  On back June 27 amid reports that the UN flew a sanctioned militia leader of the FDLR militia on a UN aircraft in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujurric about it at the UN noon briefing on June 27:
Inner City Press: why did MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] fly him to Goma to Kisangani and then to Kinshasa when, in fact, I think there’s an arrest warrant for him?
Spokesman Dujarric: I’m not aware of any other services provided to him by MONUSCO.
 But it turns out that UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous flew the sanctioned FDLR leader from Eastern Congo to Kinshasa. Rwanda complained about this, in writing, on June 26.
  On July 16, Inner City Press asked Rwanda's Deputy Permanent Representative what has been Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations' response. 
  There has BEEN no response - in more than three weeks. Video here, and embedded below.
  Little more than an hour later, Ladsous floated into the Security Council to talk about Central African Republic -- without having answered a written complaint from a Security Council member in more than three weeks. We call this: unaccountable. 

Dujarric on June 27, and in the subsequent times Inner City Press asked, insisted that not only Mary Robinson (who today left her post as the UN's Great Lakes envoy) but also US envoy Russ Feingold requested the waiver, and that the FDLR leader Gaston Iyamuremye a/k/a Rumuli had not traveled to Rome, arguing that only that was important.
  Inner City Press disagrees -- why would UN Peacekeeping underHerve Ladsous given his history on Rwanda, representing France in the Security Council in 1994 arguing for the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo, fly a sanctioned FDLR figure linked to the genocide around? 
  On July 15,  Haq said Rumuli  was escorted from Kinshasa back to the east. Video here.
  Inner City Press asked about MONUSCO escorting Rumuli.
  Haq said what he had read did not say MONUSCO did the escorting. So who did? And if not the UN, how does the UN know where Rumuli went? Watch this site.

 
  

In US Power Shift from Activist to Ambassador, Darfur, Haiti Cholera, Sri Lanka Abuses Moved to Margins


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- When an activist becomes an ambassador, what happens?
  On September 30, US Ambassador Samantha Power emerged from the UN Security Council and described to the press some of the General Debate week meetings held by President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and she had in New York.
  She mentioned the Biden-chaired meeting on Strengthening Peace Operations, which came to be described as a pledging conference. But what of particular problems with UN Peacekeeping that need to be strengthened, such as its covering up of attack on civilians in Darfur as alleged by a whistleblower?
  UN inaction amid death in Darfur is the type of issue an activist, including this one, fastens onto and doesn't let go. But right now the Obama administration likes and is using the United Nations, and so offers very little criticism of it.
  Recently the US State Department filed legal papers supporting the UN's immunity -- read, impunity -- for allegedly having brought cholera to Haiti. In the General Debate on September 29, the foreign minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
called on the United Nations to accept itsrole and offer recompense to the victims of the cholera outbreak that its peacekeepers have been proven to introduce to Haiti. A year later, the UN continues to dodge its moral and ethical responsibility. The legitimacy of this body to conduct future peacekeeping missions and the legacy of its leadership at the highest levels, will be irreparably damaged by failure to immediately redress this glaring wrong.”
  An activist, including this one, would latch onto such an analysis and not let go. But right now, the US is supporting the UN's impunity. 
  Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the quote at the September 30 noon briefing, and he said the UN is raising money, and Ban Ki-moon visited Haiti. But what about accountability? How can the UN preach rule of law while dodging the service of legal papers?
  Or a closer question: how can UN Peacekeeping, even to try to belatedly stop the bloodletting in the Central African Republic, use helicopters from the Sri Lankan Army, currently under investigation for war crimes by the UN's own Human Rights Council?
  How about moves against freedom of the press inside the UN, in writingon videosystemic?
  Or back to Darfur: even in order to carrying corpses in the Ebola red-zone, how can the UN move out 400 four by fours from Darfur, which it is accused of covering up ongoing attacks on civilians?
  There are, of course, smaller or less media-genic issues on which the roles of activist and ambassador don't conflict. The freeing in Burundi, if only on health grounds, of human rights activist Pierre Claver Mbonimpa, would seem to merit some comment from Ambassador Power, given her comments at the beginning of the month and before.
  These type of questions are not taken or at least, were not taken on September 30. Instead the line of the questions taken, some in advance, ranged from a request to criticize Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov's General Debate speech (done), to praise Ban Ki-moon (done), and to disagree with Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari (done). Even on the perennial issue of Palestine there was little pushing. It is an ecosystem. Watch this site.

 
  

On Syria, UN's Amos Report Omits Jabhat al Nusra to Whom Ladsous Ordered Peacekeepers' Surrender


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 30, updated -- When UN aid chief Valerie Amos spoke on Syria to the Security Council on September 30, one expected her to describe the impact of the airstrikes in Syria by the US and five Arab kingdoms which began fully eight days before on September 22.
  But Amos stuck to the script, a written report with a cut-off date of September 17. Thus she did not mention the reports of airstrikes hitting grain mills in Manjib. One question is, will she ever?

Update: Amos in public also did not mention the "other" UN-named terrorist group in Syria, Jabhat al Nusra. Inner City Press has learned that in the closed-door consultations that followed, Amos presented a map of who controls what in Syria, listing ISIL-affiliates groups and then, in another color, other groups. That includes Al Nusra -- that is, Nusra and the Free Syrian Army. We'll have more on this.
   Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari came out of the Security Council. Off-camera, he told Inner City Press that the airstrikes since September 22 -- the only day on which he said Syria was notified by the US -- have killed "only 14 Da'esh" or ISIL fighters.
  On UNTV camera, Inner City Press asked Ja'afari about the impact of the strikes; he said the number of civilians casualties is not yet known but when he has the information, he will provided it.
  Inner City Press asked about the order by UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous that troops from Fiji and the Philippines surrender to Al Nusra. Ja'afari said Ladsous has not gotten back to Syria -- strange, given that it hosts a peacekeeping mission, and that Ladsous met untransparently with Sudan's Omar al Bashir. 
  But Ladsous is getting more and more selective, more recently blocking Inner City Press' camera and then taking his favored scribes away from the scheduled (and canceled) stakeout for a "briefing." Video here from Minute 1:19.
  The UN released its August 19 - September 17 Syria aid access report for September in an even more pre-spun way than it did on April 23then on May 22on June 20 andthen on July 24 and August 28. The UN has declined or refused to reform its broken "gray lady" system. This report cuts off on September 17 -- before the airstrikes by the US and five Kingdoms.
  The new report, cutting off on September 17, says "Government forces also shelled and undertook airstrikes against ISIL positions in the northern and eastern parts of the country in an attempt to stop ISIL."  What about the US and five Kingdom's airstrikes?
  Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access went to the UN Spokesperson's Office on September 29, the eve of the Security Council's month meeting, and asked for an explanation why rather than reform the pre-spin system, the reports are simply not pre-released. There was no explanation.

Update II: on September 30, the UN Spokesperson's office put the report, dated September 23, into its "Gray Lady." What was the point? We'll have more on this. The UN should be transparent.
 The new report goes on, "Government- controlled cities and towns continued to be subject toindiscriminate mortar attacks, shelling and vehicle-borne improvised explosivedevices by armed opposition, extremist and designated terrorist groups, notably in
Aleppo and Damascus governorates. For example, in Aleppo city, extensive shellingin the Khalideah residential and commercial area at the beginning of September resulted in the deaths of eight civilians, including women and children."

 On a group neither listed with ISIL and Al Nursa, nor (formally) with the Free Syrian Army, the new UN report says "On September 5, armed opposition groups took control of the Dokhanya and Ein Tarma suburbs of Damascus and engaged government forces in Midan and Zahira al Jadida, located less than 2 km from the Old City. A similar operation took place in Teshrine district, north of Damascus. On 16 September, one of the main Islamic Front factions (Ajnad al Sham) announced the beginning of a second phase of rocket attacks on the centre of Damascus."
   In the new system, selective reports circulate for days before the UN's actual report. 
  As Inner City Press reported here, Australia along with Luxembourg and Jordan pushed a  resolution on Syria aid access. 
  Again, the UN report does not directly address calls in Washington to support the Free Syrian Army -- which is still listed by another part of the UN as recruiting and using child soldiers.
  On ISIL, the report continues in Paragraph 8: "ISIL continues to increase its influence in the Syrian Arab Republic, predominantly along the main supply lines in rural central Homs, Hama, Rif
Dimashq, southern Hasakeh and western Aleppo. It also continues to fight for the control of border crossings and natural resources. During the reporting period, it made advances in Raqqa, Hasakeh, and Aleppo governorates following clashes with Government forces."
  How has the pre-spinning worked, or not worked? Back on July 24 at 11:15 am US state media began tweeting about the report. Inner City Press went to the Spokesperson's Office and asked if it had been put out as described below. No, was the answer.
  But 15 minutes later, the Spokesperson's Office squawked that the report had been distributed to the Council, and there is then was in the "gray lady" -- the only UN report still distributed this way -- no reports on Africa are.
 Back on June 20, just before 6 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its "squawk" system to correspondents still in the building that the report had been circulated. This meant it had been placed in piece of furniture in the Spokesperson's Office which has sat empty for many days now.
  Apparently only these Syria reports are now pre-released, pre-announced and pre-spun. 
  In terms of the Spokesperson's duty to answer questions, there was by closure on June 20 no answer to Inner City Press' request to confirm or deny Ban Ki-moon was handed legal papers about the introduction of cholera into Haiti as he entered the Asia Society, Inner City Presscoverage here.
  Back on May 22 the UN's go-to wire service, which has also tried to get other media thrown out, gushed that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "toughly worded report... said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government bore the greater responsibility."
   This wire's report didn't mention the Free Syrian Army displacing people (in the report) or the FSA recruiting child soldiers (in another recent UN report, which Inner City Press noted here.)
  Nor did it mention, for example, "45,000 in areas besieged by opposition forces in Nubul and Zahra." The number remains the same in the June 20 report.
   As we diplomatically sketched on April 23 hoping for some reform, the UN Spokesperson's Office makes "advance copies" of reports available. That is fine - but there is no consistency in who they tell of the availability of reports or how they make the announcement.
  Showing bias, they only "squawk" over the internal intercom system some but not all reports. 
  Now this inconsistency applies to pre-releasing some but not all reports. Who decides? How?
   Using the squawk system rather than e-mailing all resident correspondents favors media, like the UN friendly wire, which have a person sitting in their office -- for example a person who filed a "for the record" complaint against another media, than scammed Google into banning the leaked complaint from Search, misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, click here for that.
  Other international organizations handle this with less bias. The IMF gives accredited media like Inner City Press embargoed copies of documents, and hold embargoed briefings to which accredited journalists anywhere in the world can pose questions, then wait and report at the embargo time. The UN must improve: and the Free UN Coalition for Access is working on this.
  Other have complained about this murky UN practices; others still a month ago asked FUNCA to wait a week before proposing reforms, which it did. But where are any reforms? We will continue to Press.
   If the Gulf & Western insiders on the board of the UN Correspondents Association, which tried to get other media thrown out of the UN, have a problem with disclosure, they too should push the UN to reform. But they won't even reform themselves, and for example commit not to seek the expulsion of other media from the UN. 
  The current spokesperson has taken sides on this and other things; it is time for reform. If Ban Ki-moon is so tough and principled, why was he praising the president of Sri Lanka just after a report showed him seeking to "go all the way" and kill all his opponents? This all circles back. We'll have more on this.
Further back-ground: On April 30 when UN Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos took media questions, Inner City Press asked her about two paragraphs of her report on Syria, the advance copy of which was released on April 23 as analyzed below.
   Paragraph 47 disclosed 25 UN staff members detained. Inner City Press asked, by whom? Amos said by both the government and the armed groups. 
 The June 20 report, in Paragraph 44, says "29 UN staff (27 UNRWA and 2 UNDP) are currently detained of which four are missing."
   The Free UN Coalition for Access has repeatedly asked, including at UN noon briefings, why these reports don't just go online for all to see. The response, off-camera, has been to allow translation into the UN's official six languages. Really?
  The result is that stories are written, for example here by Reuters, that focus on the Syrian government while the report has whole sections about Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, et al. Is this retyping really "reporting" by the Reuters bureau chief, who himself is engaged in censorship, here?
 Despite the lack of any stated rule in this regard,  FUNCA and Inner City Press have been criticized for even questioning or reporting on this anti-public process. A previous UN spokesperson told Inner City Press the reason for stealth is that "the member states" would like pre-release before translation. But doesn't the Secretariat WORK for member states? Or is this how they buy the fealty of the scribes?
   But if Gulf media immediately scans and puts the advance copy online, where is the mystery? Where is the double standard? Wouldn't it be better for the UN itself to put the report online when available?
 And then not, as it did on Western Sahara, change the report after getting pushed around? FUNCA is and will remain for UN transparency and fair treatment. And FUNCA maintains there should be answers -- including from UN Under Secretaries General -- and written rules. The UN has outright refused to explain why for example the Turkish Cypriot leader Eroglu was allowed to speak on UNTV but Polisario is not. The lack of rules only benefits the powerful: media, corporations, countries.
     When Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring the Syrian Coalition headed by Ahmad al Jarba, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.
   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."
  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioning at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?
  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?
   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.
  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.
   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against fauxUN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.
Watch this site.

 
  

Syria Report Cuts Off Before Strikes of US & 5 Kingdoms, No Gray Lady


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 29, updated -- The UN released its Syria aid access report for September in an even more pre-spun way than it did on April 23then on May 22on June 20 and then on July 24 and August 28. The UN has declined or refused to reform its broken "gray lady" system. This report cuts off on September 17 -- before the airstrikes by the US and five Kingdoms.
  The new report, cutting off on September 17, says "Government forces also shelled and undertook airstrikes against ISIL positions in the northern and eastern parts of the country in an attempt to stop ISIL."  What about the US and five Kingdom's airstrikes?
  Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access went to the UN Spokesperson's Office on September 29, the eve of the Security Council's month meeting, and asked for an explanation why rather than reform the pre-spin system, the reports are simply not pre-released. There was no explanation.

Update: on September 30, the UN Spokesperson's office put the report, dated September 23, into its "Gray Lady." What was the point? We'll have more on this. The UN should be transparent.
 The new report goes on, "Government- controlled cities and towns continued to be subject toindiscriminate mortar attacks, shelling and vehicle-borne improvised explosivedevices by armed opposition, extremist and designated terrorist groups, notably in
Aleppo and Damascus governorates. For example, in Aleppo city, extensive shellingin the Khalideah residential and commercial area at the beginning of September resulted in the deaths of eight civilians, including women and children."

 On a group neither listed with ISIL and Al Nursa, nor (formally) with the Free Syrian Army, the new UN report says "On September 5, armed opposition groups took control of the Dokhanya and Ein Tarma suburbs of Damascus and engaged government forces in Midan and Zahira al Jadida, located less than 2 km from the Old City. A similar operation took place in Teshrine district, north of Damascus. On 16 September, one of the main Islamic Front factions (Ajnad al Sham) announced the beginning of a second phase of rocket attacks on the centre of Damascus."
   In the new system, selective reports circulate for days before the UN's actual report. 
  As Inner City Press reported here, Australia along with Luxembourg and Jordan pushed a  resolution on Syria aid access. 
  Again, the UN report does not directly address calls in Washington to support the Free Syrian Army -- which is still listed by another part of the UN as recruiting and using child soldiers.
  On ISIL, the report continues in Paragraph 8: "ISIL continues to increase its influence in the Syrian Arab Republic, predominantly along the main supply lines in rural central Homs, Hama, Rif
Dimashq, southern Hasakeh and western Aleppo. It also continues to fight for the control of border crossings and natural resources. During the reporting period, it made advances in Raqqa, Hasakeh, and Aleppo governorates following clashes with Government forces."
  How has the pre-spinning worked, or not worked? Back on July 24 at 11:15 am US state media began tweeting about the report. Inner City Press went to the Spokesperson's Office and asked if it had been put out as described below. No, was the answer.
  But 15 minutes later, the Spokesperson's Office squawked that the report had been distributed to the Council, and there is then was in the "gray lady" -- the only UN report still distributed this way -- no reports on Africa are.
 Back on June 20, just before 6 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its "squawk" system to correspondents still in the building that the report had been circulated. This meant it had been placed in piece of furniture in the Spokesperson's Office which has sat empty for many days now.
  Apparently only these Syria reports are now pre-released, pre-announced and pre-spun. 
  In terms of the Spokesperson's duty to answer questions, there was by closure on June 20 no answer to Inner City Press' request to confirm or deny Ban Ki-moon was handed legal papers about the introduction of cholera into Haiti as he entered the Asia Society, Inner City Presscoverage here.
  Back on May 22 the UN's go-to wire service, which has also tried to get other media thrown out, gushed that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "toughly worded report... said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government bore the greater responsibility."
   This wire's report didn't mention the Free Syrian Army displacing people (in the report) or the FSA recruiting child soldiers (in another recent UN report, which Inner City Press noted here.)
  Nor did it mention, for example, "45,000 in areas besieged by opposition forces in Nubul and Zahra." The number remains the same in the June 20 report.
   As we diplomatically sketched on April 23 hoping for some reform, the UN Spokesperson's Office makes "advance copies" of reports available. That is fine - but there is no consistency in who they tell of the availability of reports or how they make the announcement.
  Showing bias, they only "squawk" over the internal intercom system some but not all reports. 
  Now this inconsistency applies to pre-releasing some but not all reports. Who decides? How?
   Using the squawk system rather than e-mailing all resident correspondents favors media, like the UN friendly wire, which have a person sitting in their office -- for example a person who filed a "for the record" complaint against another media, than scammed Google into banning the leaked complaint from Search, misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, click here for that.
  Other international organizations handle this with less bias. The IMF gives accredited media like Inner City Press embargoed copies of documents, and hold embargoed briefings to which accredited journalists anywhere in the world can pose questions, then wait and report at the embargo time. The UN must improve: and the Free UN Coalition for Access is working on this.
  Other have complained about this murky UN practices; others still a month ago asked FUNCA to wait a week before proposing reforms, which it did. But where are any reforms? We will continue to Press.
   If the Gulf & Western insiders on the board of the UN Correspondents Association, which tried to get other media thrown out of the UN, have a problem with disclosure, they too should push the UN to reform. But they won't even reform themselves, and for example commit not to seek the expulsion of other media from the UN. 
  The current spokesperson has taken sides on this and other things; it is time for reform. If Ban Ki-moon is so tough and principled, why was he praising the president of Sri Lanka just after a report showed him seeking to "go all the way" and kill all his opponents? This all circles back. We'll have more on this.
Further back-ground: On April 30 when UN Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos took media questions, Inner City Press asked her about two paragraphs of her report on Syria, the advance copy of which was released on April 23 as analyzed below.
   Paragraph 47 disclosed 25 UN staff members detained. Inner City Press asked, by whom? Amos said by both the government and the armed groups. 
 The June 20 report, in Paragraph 44, says "29 UN staff (27 UNRWA and 2 UNDP) are currently detained of which four are missing."
   The Free UN Coalition for Access has repeatedly asked, including at UN noon briefings, why these reports don't just go online for all to see. The response, off-camera, has been to allow translation into the UN's official six languages. Really?
  The result is that stories are written, for example here by Reuters, that focus on the Syrian government while the report has whole sections about Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, et al. Is this retyping really "reporting" by the Reuters bureau chief, who himself is engaged in censorship, here?
 Despite the lack of any stated rule in this regard,  FUNCA and Inner City Press have been criticized for even questioning or reporting on this anti-public process. A previous UN spokesperson told Inner City Press the reason for stealth is that "the member states" would like pre-release before translation. But doesn't the Secretariat WORK for member states? Or is this how they buy the fealty of the scribes?
   But if Gulf media immediately scans and puts the advance copy online, where is the mystery? Where is the double standard? Wouldn't it be better for the UN itself to put the report online when available?
 And then not, as it did on Western Sahara, change the report after getting pushed around? FUNCA is and will remain for UN transparency and fair treatment. And FUNCA maintains there should be answers -- including from UN Under Secretaries General -- and written rules. The UN has outright refused to explain why for example the Turkish Cypriot leader Eroglu was allowed to speak on UNTV but Polisario is not. The lack of rules only benefits the powerful: media, countries, corporations.
  Back in April when Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'fari came to speak, Inner City Press asked him about US-made BGM-71 TOW missiles now in Syria, of the group Harakat Hazm. They are with Al Nusra, Ja'afari said.
  Inner City Press asked on what basis Ja'afari said the US approved their transfer to Syria, if they could have come through Turkey. Ja'afari said there is no way they could come in without approval from Washington. Video here -- this is Inner City Press YouTube video.
  Unlike other stakeouts, the UN did not put on its UN Webcast archive Ja'afari's long April 17 stakeout including on TOW missiles. Inner City Press asked about it on April 22 at the noon briefing, and later another UN individual acknowledged it had not gone up. But why?  Now, only after asking, it is up. Click here (TOW question and answer from Minute 15:17.) This is how the UN works, or doesn't.
  Ja'afari was asked by Voice of America, why Syria doesn't use Russia or China to get a meeting about Kassab. Ja'afari responded to the question; he did not say as France Ambassador Gerard Araud did on April 15 to Al Mayadeen, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."

  By Araud's logic, is not Voice of America an agent? Is not France 24, also called on by Ja'afari? Ah, freedom of the press. Here is what the Free UN Coalition for Access has done so far.
   When outgoing French Ambassador Araud scheduled a press conference on human rights for April 15, he began to receive many questions, here, about blocking human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 
  It is a policy Araud is particularly associated with, since Javier Barden quoted him calling Morocco France's "mistress." Araud spoke of suing, but hasn't.
   But when during the April 15 press conference, in which Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accesswere not called on, Araud was asked about France having killed people in Algeria, Araud told the questioner, You are not a journalist, you are an agent. Video here.
  The French run press conference gave the first question to Al Arabiya, for UNCA (now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance), then France 24.  By Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung, a Voice of America affiliate was given a question. 
  Syria "Caesar" report panelist David Crane was asked who funded it and answered on camera merely that he was paid. (The photographs, Inner City Press noted and notes, are extremely troubling - all the more reason that taking Qatar's funding and denouncing the only critical question were unwise.)
  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Crane to confirm the payment was from Qatar. He confirmed it. Inner City Press asked, did you seek any other, less compromised funding? The answer was no. In fact, Crane said he gave his recommendations to the Syrian National Council. Afterward Inner City Press asked him if he meant the Turkey based group headed by Ahmed Al Jarba, and Crane said yes, than added, "The resistance" writ large.
     When Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring the Syrian Coalition headed by Ahmad al Jarba, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.
   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."
  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioning at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?
  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?
   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.
  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.
   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against fauxUN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.
Watch this site.