As CPJ Honors Ethiopian Free Zone 9 Bloggers, Table to Debevoise Law Firm With Business There, As In Rajapaksa's Sri Lanka: Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- At Manhattan's Waldorf Astoria Hotel a crowd of the elite not only of media but of the (corporate) law, the men in tuxedos, on November 24 rightly  celebrated journalists like the Free Zone 9 Bloggers of Ethiopia.  

  Inner City Press went to cover the event in order tointerview the Ethiopian bloggers, about those incarceration it had repeatedly asked the UN, without meaningful response. The bloggers were not to be found in the Astor or Jade rooms, reception sponsored by Reuters, so Inner City Press went to take in the scene from the balcony above the ballroom floor. Periscope video here

After some interplay with security, the Press was directed to a lower balcony directly above tables with signs for Time Inc, First Look Media and, incongruously, the Debevoise & Plimpton corporate law firm.

  The speakers, from MC David Muir to CPJ's own executives, told those in attendance they were helping just be being present (and, presumably, paying). But there is a question: if for example the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton promotes investment in the same Ethiopia which locked up the Zone 9 Bloggers, and did deals in Mahinda Rajapaksa's Sri Lanka, which killed journalists, is the one-night purchase of a table on balance of assistance?

  Some might say that with this money they do good. But if the cause is truth, or even speaking truth to power, does the hobnobs of corporate M&A law firms with corporate media, some it new, really serve that cause?

  From the balcony before leaving, there was too little -- seemingly no -- mention of the plight of journalists in Burundi, for example; the treatment of Turkey seemed kids-gloved (although Christiane Amanpour did mention the country in a video she narrated). We'll have more on this.

  Last year, too, Inner City Press and the UN-based Free UN Coalition for Access were left with questions. The selection by the Committee to Protect Journalists seemed one-sided, without even a tip of the cap, or bow-tie, to James Risen or James Rosen, prosecuted the the US, much less journalists killed in Eastern Ukraine by forces based in Kyiv. 

   Or take the cases of Ethiopia's Zone 9 bloggers and Temesgen Desalegn, which were tellingly ignored by CPJ when on a panel at the UN on November 3, 2014. That day the UN held its event for the first International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. Not a single question from a journalist was taken.  CPJ was on the panel.

 Also speaking from the podium was for example UNESCO's Deputy Director General Getachew Engida of Ethiopia, a country which just sentenced to three years in jail journalist  Desalegn.

This journalist's imprisonment, for “provocation,” is hardly low profile; either is that of the Ethopian Zone 9 Bloggers. But the moderator, UNESCO's George Papagiannis, did not raise the issue, even as he purported to read out congratulatory live-tweets about the event.

  (IFEX to its credit did reply to one of @InnerCityPress' tweets questioning the event and how it was run, here. By another, it was suggested that maybe Engida, even with his many UN system posts, is a dissident from Ethiopia. But it does not seem like it: see recent photo here.)

Nor did any of the other panelists raise it: Joel Simon of CPJ, Greece's Ambassador, Columbia University's Agnes Callamard. The lone media panelist, from Al Arabiya, spoke without irony about naming and shaming countries which jail critics for mere tweets: many in the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula.

Inner City Press as media, and the new Free UN Coalition for Access, had this question ready:

“about an underpinning to deadly attacks on journalist: the idea that they are parties to a conflict, or can be prosecuted for their reporting on national security. Can the panel, particularly the Deputy Director General of UNESCO, comment on Ethiopia jailing journalist Temesgen Desalegn for three years for “provocation”? Or, to be fair, the prosecutions here in the US of James Rosen, James Risen and Barrett Brown, set to be sentenced on November 24? Of the breaking up of meetings of reporters in Sri Lanka, a country in which journalists have been killed or “disappeared,” as in the case of Prageeth. What is the relation of such prosecutions to the actual killing of journalists?”

But, as noted, the hour and a half long panel took not a single question from a journalist. At the day's UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban while in Ethiopia recently to make it the third largest UN “duty station” had in any way raised the case of journalist Temesgen Desalegn. 

 Apparently not. This is how the UN -- and CPJ, to some extent -- work, or don't.

  When CPJ was shown of censorship within the UN itself, it did nothing.  Then president of the UN Correspondents Association Giampaolo Pioli demanded that a Press story about him renting one of his Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's ambassador, then unilaterally agreeing to use UNCA to screen the Sri Lankan government's war crimes denial film in the UN. 

  When Inner City Press refused to take the story down, instead offering to publish a letter to the editor of any length, Pioli made good on this threat to try to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. Documents obtained from Voice of America under FOIA here, here (AFP) andhere (Reuters - which also tried to censor its complaint to the UN, here, via Electronic Frontier Foundation's Chilling Effects project.

 What did CPJ do or say about this? Unlike the New York Civil Liberties Union, here, CPJ did and said nothing - like the Sri Lankan government, it uses UNCA as one of its ways into the UN. It is inconvenient to look at this. But now, indicative of UNCA's decay, Pioli is set without competition to return to head UNCA. So will CPJ'slongstanding marriage of convenience at the UN continue apace? Watch this site.

On #FreeAJstaff, US Urges Egypt to Redress Verdict - Or What? UN Silent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 29 -- Amid news that Egypt imposed prison sentences on Al Jazeera journalists Mohammed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed and Peter Greste, while the UN had still said nothing at all, the US State Department said:

"The United States is deeply disappointed and concerned by the verdict handed down by an Egyptian court to the three Al-Jazeera journalists - Mohamed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed, and Peter Greste. The freedom of the press to investigate, report, and comment – even when its perspective is unpopular or disputed – is fundamental to any free society and essential to democratic development.

"We urge the Government of Egypt to take all available measures to redress this verdict, which undermines the very freedom of expression necessary for stability and development."

  But what will the US actually DO about this? And the UN? It remained silent, just as it refused to answer Press questions about the burning-down of a radio station in Burkina Faso, as raised by the Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA).

  Back on February 13, 2015, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the decision by the Egyptian authorities to release on bail the journalists Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. He hopes that their cases, as well as those of other journalists in detention, will be resolved expeditiously and in accordance with Egypt’s international obligations to protect the freedoms of expression and association."

   Ban Ki-moon didn't explain his silence while in Ethiopia for the recent African Union summit about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Peter Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  On February 12, 2015 across First Avenue from the UN there was a panel discussion on protection of journalists at the International Peace Institute. Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo spoke.

 Inner City Press ran across First Avenue and posed a question: does the UN system do for independent journalists and bloggers what it does for corporate or state media?

  The panelist who answered was David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Kaye said, "As an independent journalist, it's good to see you here. From different perspectives, I think that's right. Sometimes the UN can do so loudly and publicly. Some situation might call for a little bit more of a quieter engagement."

  Rapporteur Kaye said that "from the OHCHR perspective, we have different tools. Our first tool is to communicate with governments on the quiet side, send them allegation letters or urgent appeals, Zone 9 Bloggers being a good exampe of that.
If we don't get a response, to issue press releases, to call out bad behavior. I agree with the tenor or your comment -- we should be out there calling out the bad behavior at the moment that it happens, quietly or more publicly. Article 19 is not written to protect only journalists, it protects everyone's right to seek, receive and impart information."

  The other panelists were Bård Glad Pedersen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Agnes Callamard, Director of the Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia University and former Executive Director of Article 19, Matthew Rosenberg, Foreign Correspondent of the New York Times (with interesting stories of Afghanistan but who declined to discuss the NYT's coverage of Iraq before the US invasion) and Judith Matloff of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. There will be video.

   

On Yemen, After Ban's False Pause Fails, Happy Talk of Ethiopia, Financing for Development

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 13 -- The UN Secretariat's bungling of Yemen mediation has become ever more clear, according to multiple sources and documents exclusively seen by Inner City Press, see below. On July 9, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proudly announced a humanitarian pause to start on July 10 at midnight.

  Three days after the pause failed, still Ban Ki-moon had said nothing about it. In the interim he cranked out, on July 13, a statement about Colombia inviting the UN to a sub-committee meeting. There was also agushing read-out of a Ban's meeting with Ethiopia's prime minister Hailemariam Desalegn, while several of the Zone 9 bloggers remain locked up as noted by the Free UN Coalition for Access.

  Ban was in Addis Ababa for the Financing for Development conference; here are his UN's "messaging" points in the run-up to that conference (and here an Inner City Press story about it; we'll have more). But isn't the UN responsible to say something after a humanitarian pause it announced doesn't happen, and people are killed? 

  It quickly became clear that some of key parties had not been spoken with or agreed; the pause's midnight beginning came and passed amid airstrikes.

  Inner City Press is informed by sources that Ban Ki-moon was urged to not make the dubious pause announcement, including from within the UN's own Department of Political Affairs -- but Ban announced it anyway.

  At best, it was rolling the dice. At worse, on the very day that UN is rightly criticizing itself for making false promises of protection in Srebrenica 20 years ago, in this case Yemenis were told there would be a pause, and some perhaps relied on it, to their detriment. And still the UN had said nothing.

  After the July 9 announcement, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman if the Saudis had been spoken with. The answer was, Hadi told the Saudis his position. But did Hadi ever agree to the pause, or just to the conditions set forth in his letter to UN? What of Hadi's responsibilities to the Yemeni people?

Update: now Saudi Al Arabiya says Saudi Arabia never received any communication from Hadi to stop airstrikes, here. Someone is lying.

  Where is the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed? Headed to Ethiopia, Ban's spokesman said, to meet with Ban on the sidelines of the Financing for Development conference there. Does IOCA harbor ambitions for another UN system post, or back in his own country? What sort of a track record is this? Watch this site.

 At the July 10 UN noon briefing in New York, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN had spoken with those in Yemen opposing the Houthis but not supporting or in contact with Hadi. Video here. From Dujarric's answer, it seems no such contact has been made.

  So, Inner City Press asked, if such a group fires on the Houthis and they fire back, is the pause over, has it been violated? We'll see what happens.

Back on July 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: can you, one, characterize not the communications with Mr. Hadi, but with Saudi Arabia that's running the coalition, the Saudi-led coalition.  And does this mean the Secretary-General's understanding is no airstrikes during this time period, and no further advances or use of heavy weapons by the Houthis?  Does the pause mean no firing? What does it mean to each of those two sides?

Spokesman Dujarric:  What it means is that, if you read the statement, the President… Secretary-General notes that the President, President Hadi, has communicated his acceptance of the pause to the coalition to ensure their support.  A humanitarian pause means no fighting.  It means no bombing.  It means no shooting.  It means no fighting.  It means exactly that:  a humanitarian pause in the fighting that we've seen, to enable our humanitarian colleagues to get the aid to where it's needed, to preposition, and stockpile, and to reach the millions that need it.

Inner City Press:  Right.  But just for example, policing, who's doing policing in these various cities?  Things happen.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously I think… [cross talk] In any area in the country, there is a… there is de facto control and, obviously, there is a need to ensure safety and security.  What we're talking about is a humanitarian pause in the fighting that we've been witnessing for weeks on end now.

Inner City Press:  So just one last thing on this.  So the commitment on airstrikes is through President Hadi to the UN?

Spokesman:  You know, the… [cross talk] Obviously, President Hadi is a critical interlocutor with the coalition.  And as I've said, we've taken note of the fact that he's conveyed to the coalition his acceptance.  We expect everyone involved in this conflict to honor this humanitarian pause.

 On July 7 the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights upped its estimate of civilians killed since March 27 to 1,528, adding that one million people have been displaced since the beginning of this round of the conflict. To the Saudi airstrike on UNDP in Khormaksar, Aden, OHCHR added that "IOM’s Migrant Response Centre in Basateen, also in Aden, was struck by a mortar and an airstrike damaged IOM’s office in Harad."

   IOM, as Inner City Press reported, had earlier paused its evacuation by air of those seeking to flee Yemen due to some party, which it left unnamed, demanding information about those fleeing BEFORE the flights could leave. Inner City Press has asked others in the UN about this and has been told IOM should have done the screening after the people were able to flee. IOM refused a direct question about caused it to violate this best practice, then stopped sending the Press any information.

   There are countries, normally vocal about civilian deaths, which are selling military equipment to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. Ban Ki-moon, now in Oslo, is relying entirely on Saudi-selected replacement envoy Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who was unable to even get the parties in the same room in Geneva, much less reach an agreement. There remain, for now, OHCHR's body counts.

  On June 24, Inner City Press asked the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed about the request by the Houthis and others to meet not with him but with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who did not meet with them in Geneva. Transcribed here. 

  On June 25 Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm receipt of the letter and if Ban will meet them. Haq said Cheikh Ahmed is the envoy, and Ban's headed to San Francisco. The UN Security Council issued a Press Statement, here.

 Also on June 25, Inner City Press asked new UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien three questions about Yemen: cholera, the destruction of ambulances in Sa'ada and about international staff. Video here.

  O'Brien replied that cholera is a risk; he had no information on WHO it was that destroyed the ambulances in Sa'ada (we can guess.) On international staff, which the UN evacuated earlier, he spoke of a rise from 17 to 70, with the goal of getting to 200. He would not say if they are anywhere in the country outside of Sana'a, citing security. But at least he spoke - the Free UN Coalition for Access thanked him.

Here's from the June 24 stakeout, as fast transcribed by Inner City Press:

Inner City Press: On the parties in Sanaa requesting to meet the Secretary General – what’s your response?

Cheikh Ahmed: "This question was raised during our discussion with the Houthis, the GPC and their allies. The Secretary General had delayed twice his travel in order to be there for the parties. We have sent twice a plane from Sanaa which the delegation from Sana'a could not take..  Therefore the Secretary General had a major engagement, which was the election of the new president of the General Assembly which takes place only once a year , and he had to attend it. But the Secretary General will continue being engaged on this."

  The ceremonial elevation of the President of the GA who will take over in September was not an election at all - no vote was taken. At the top, Cheikh Ahmed said (again, as fast transcribed by Inner City Press)

"I just briefed the Security Council on the latest developments in Yemen, with a particular focus on the Geneva Consultation. I informed the Council that the Geneva intra-Yemeni Consultations are a milestone... Despite the raging battles and ongoing violence, and the dramatic humanitarian situation, Yemenis accepted the Secretary General’s invitation and participated in the consultations.

"The personal presence of the Secretary General was an indication of the primary importance attached by the United Nations and the international community, and in particular the Secretary General himself on the Yemeni situation. I deeply regret the deep division between the parties and the lack of compromise that prevented an agreement that was within reach. The holding of the Geneva consultation was itself a great achievement in light of the extreme violence unleashed in Yemen.

"While the government came to Geneva to seek the implementation of Security Council Resolution 2216, the government acted in a positive and constructive spirit. Both sides showed signs of constructive engagement. There is an emerging common ground upon which we can build to achieve a ceasefire coupled with a withdrawal.

"While we pursue a long term cessation of violence, I call on all relevant parties to agree without delay to the humanitarian truce, especially during Ramadan. We should not forget that Yemenis are living under dire conditions and it pains me to witness this ongoing suffering. I call on all stakeholders to spare no effort to help us achieve a temporary respite for the Yemeni people.

"I am aware that reviving the political process will not be easy. The Secretary General and I have been clear from the outset that this consultation was only a stepping stone towards the long inclusive political process. All the parties affirmed their commitment to remain engaged with the UN in search of a peaceful solution of the conflict. I have no doubt that it is possible to build upon this positive spirit in the forthcoming consultation.

"I strongly believe that the UN facilitated intra-Yemeni consultations offer the best chance for moving towards a de-escalation of the crisis and a return to the political process. I personally believe there is no military answer to this conflict. I therefore remain committed and will spare no effort to achieve a cease fire and the swift return to a peaceful, inclusive political process."

 Before the meeting, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped and told the press of the danger of famine in the country, and of his hope for a Yemen Press Statement from the UNSC, in which the UK is the "penholder" on Yemen.  Periscope video here, replay including on desktop for 24 hours.

 Inner City Press was digging into the letter from political parties IN Yemen, asking for a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, NOT with replacement envoy Cheikh Ahmed. These parties, including but not limited to the Houthis, were delayed in getting to Geneva so that they could not meet with Ban (who while there DID meet with a US-listed Al Qaeda terrorist).

  While some are sure to argue that Ban now meeting with the parties would undercut Cheikh Ahmed, others point out the the underlying resolution speaks of the Secretary General's Good Offices INCLUDING his Envoy. The envoy is not the only game in town - nor, given his lack of disclosure, raised by Inner City Press, should he be. We'll have more on this.

   

In UN's NGO Committee, Freedom Now Voted Down 11-4, Turkey "Absent," Move to ECOSOC Predicted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- In the UN's Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on May 29, the application of Freedom Now was pushed to a vote by the United States; it was badly defeated, with eleven votes against and only four votes for, with one abstention (India) and three NGO Committee members absent: Guinea, Mauritania and, tellingly, Turkey.

  The “No” voters included Sudan, on which outgoing UN aid coordinator Valerie Amos refused to comment on May 28, here, and Burundi amid its crackdown and simultaneous submission of abusive police officers for service in Herve Ladsous' mission in Mali, MINUSMA, here.

  Freedom Now speaks up for (some) political prisoners, and usually effectively (that the Zone 9 Bloggers are still in jail is telling.) Freedom NOw can and will continue their work without the dubious “legitimacy” this Committee can confer. But the question arose, why did the US push it to a vote that it knew it would lose, and badly?  Why didn't the US work to “turn” some of the votes, at least from “No” to abstention or absent?

    But the “No” camp had their points on May 29. The chair of the Committee repeatedly refused to explain why for example the vote on Freedom Now could be pushed for, while another item in the morning, similarly pushed, was deferred. South Africa raised this, and later the Chair made a point of admonishing them, “for the record,” he said.  He did not appear impartial, whatever that means in the UN. Inner City Press live-tweeted it, here and here.

   The pattern now is for defeated applications like this to be referred to the full ECOSOC Committee, where the political mix is different. Does this mean there is less focus in the run-up to selection for the NGO Committee? Some expect to hear more on this from the US, from Ambassador Samantha Power as before, here, and soon. Watch this site.
   

At UN Human Rights Council, Spats of Syria and Saudi Arabia, Japan and North Korea, Hypocrisy on Sri Lanka, Silence on Bloggers in Ethiopia and Saudi

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 2 -- The UN Human Rights Council first day back in session Monday ended with replies by Syria and Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Japan -- and Ethiopia to Norway.

   The first two standoffs were routine, about Saudi Arabians funding terrorism and the death toll in Syria, Japan's “past crimes” and the recent North Korea or DPRK report. Ethiopia defended its law on non-governmental organizations; its reply did not mention the Zone 9 Bloggers being jailed.

    Mexico praised the US FCC's Net Neutrality decision; HRC chair Joachim Rucker played time keeper at the end, telling DPRK to wrap it up, and saying only two minutes on second replies.

  Saudi Arabia's statements did not mention jailed and flogged blogger Raif Badawi. Nor did Prince Zeid's opening remarks explain how his criticism of countries claiming exceptions to human rights law was consistent with his obtaining a six month deferral of the HRC report on Sri Lanka.

  The UK's Joyce Anelay said the report should be published no later than September; as she spoke in Geneva, the UK delegation in New York went into the UN Security Council to meet with incoming Council president France. Why was the slaughter in Sri Lanka never put on the Security Council's agenda? What is the UN's Jeffrey Feltman saying in Sri Lanka? We'll have more on this.

   

As Ban Ki-moon Speaks on Al Jazeera Bail, He's Still Silent on Zone 9 Bloggers in Ethiopia, FUNCA Asks, Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 13 -- Amid news that Egypt has released two Al Jazeera journalists Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed on bail, statements are churned out from all corners. 

  Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has one:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the decision by the Egyptian authorities to release on bail the journalists Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. He hopes that their cases, as well as those of other journalists in detention, will be resolved expeditiously and in accordance with Egypt’s international obligations to protect the freedoms of expression and association."

   Ban Ki-moon should still explain his silence while in Ethiopia for the recent African Union summit about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Peter Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  But the UN in New York, and the UN in Addis Ababa, have been silent.

  On February 12 across First Avenue from the UN there was a panel discussion on protection of journalists at the International Peace Institute. Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo spoke.

 Inner City Press ran across First Avenue and posed a question: does the UN system do for independent journalists and bloggers what it does for corporate or state media?

  The panelist who answered was David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Kaye said, "As an independent journalist, it's good to see you here. From different perspectives, I think that's right. Sometimes the UN can do so loudly and publicly. Some situation might call for a little bit more of a quieter engagement."
 
  Rapporteur Kaye said that "from the OHCHR perspective, we have different tools. Our first tool is to communicate with governments on the quiet side, send them allegation letters or urgent appeals, Zone 9 Bloggers being a good exampe of that.
If we don't get a response, to issue press releases, to call out bad behavior. I agree with the tenor or your comment -- we should be out there calling out the bad behavior at the moment that it happens, quietly or more publicly. Article 19 is not written to protect only journalists, it protects everyone's right to seek, receive and impart information."
 
  The other panelists were Bård Glad Pedersen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Agnes Callamard, Director of the Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia University and former Executive Director of Article 19, Matthew Rosenberg, Foreign Correspondent of the New York Times (with interesting stories of Afghanistan but who declined to discuss the NYT's coverage of Iraq before the US invasion) and Judith Matloff of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. There will be video.

   

Amid UN Free Press Talk, Ban Ki-moon Stays Silent on Zone 9 Bloggers, UN Rapporteur Kaye at IPI

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12 -- Amid news that Egypt has released two Al Jazeera journalists Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed on bail, statements are churned out from all corners. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon may have one -- but he should still explain his silence while in Ethiopia for the recent African Union summit about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Peter Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  But the UN in New York, and the UN in Addis Ababa, have been silent.

  On February 12 across First Avenue from the UN there was a panel discussion on protection of journalists at the International Peace Institute. Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo spoke.

 Inner City Press ran across First Avenue and posed a question: does the UN system do for independent journalists and bloggers what it does for corporate or state media?

  The panelist who answered was David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Kaye said, "As an independent journalist, it's good to see you here. From different perspectives, I think that's right. Sometimes the UN can do so loudly and publicly. Some situation might call for a little bit more of a quieter engagement."
 
  Rapporteur Kaye said that "from the OHCHR perspective, we have different tools. Our first tool is to communicate with governments on the quiet side, send them allegation letters or urgent appeals, Zone 9 Bloggers being a good exampe of that.
If we don't get a response, to issue press releases, to call out bad behavior. I agree with the tenor or your comment -- we should be out there calling out the bad behavior at the moment that it happens, quietly or more publicly. Article 19 is not written to protect only journalists, it protects everyone's right to seek, receive and impart information."
 
  The other panelists were Bård Glad Pedersen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Agnes Callamard, Director of the Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia University and former Executive Director of Article 19, Matthew Rosenberg, Foreign Correspondent of the New York Times (with interesting stories of Afghanistan but who declined to discuss the NYT's coverage of Iraq before the US invasion) and Judith Matloff of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. There will be video.

   

As UNSG Ban Ki-moon Speaks on Peter Greste Extradition from Egypt, Silence on Zone 9 Bloggers in Ethiopia: UN Double Standards?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 2 -- Amid news that Egypt has released journalist Peter Greste, statements are churning out from all corners. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has churned one out, here.  Now Ban should explain his silence this week while in Ethiopia about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access, has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  (While Mohammed Fahmy may be renouncing his Egyptian co-citizenship follow Greste, the situation of Mohammed Baher must also be resolved, and the journalist released - like others.)

  When the UN held a “Social Media Summit” on January 30, it concluded with a panel about trends, from mobile to analytics to video and Facebook's acquisition of Snapchat. 

  But what about the UN defending or at least speaking up for freedom of expression on the Internet?

  Earlier on January 30, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban while in Ethiopia for the African Union summit had not raised the terrorism charges brought against the Zone 9 Bloggers.Video here.

   Dujarric said Ban has spoken elsewhere about freedom of expression in Africa, and that the (other) contents of his AU speech were interesting. 

   So Inner City Press went to the #SocialUN final panel and asked, does the UN do enough to speak up for freedom in social media? One of the panelists had just finished praising high tech in Qatar. What about arrests for insulting the leader? What about Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain? Video here.

  Panelist Hayes Brown of BuzzFeed, who advised and practices Be a Person on Twitter, including baking and (good) jokes, said it is hard for the UN, since it has member states that pay its bills. He said he agreed about bloggers in Ethiopia but wasn't sure what the UN could do, beyond speaking up.

  Well, as to the Zone 9 Bloggers, the UN has yet to speak up. That would be a start.

  Panelist Liz Borod Wight, who moderator Sree Sreenivasan marveled is paid to do Instagram for the BBC, cites those who tweeted #JeSuisCharlie and said those who have freedom of expression should use it.

  Panelist Adam Glenn from CUNY Journalism School said, hoping not to offend the hosts the UN, that the UN should ensure that all of its staff have training and can tweet.

  Inner City Press and FUNCA note, for example, that a UN staffer in South Sudan abruptly stopped tweeting after she tweeted this: "#breaking Lou Nuer youth are mobilising in big numbers leaving #Akobo town empty heading towards Dengjok #Southsudan."

   As Inner City Press reported at the time, after Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen raised this alarm, the tweet and her Twitter account profile both disappeared. So much for Rights Up Front.

  At the end of the panel a UN staffer took the floor to acknowledge that UN staff cannot tweet what they think. But can't Ban Ki-moon say what he thinks? Or doesn't he think it? We'll have more on this.

    

Amid Good News of Peter Greste Extradition from Egypt, Of Silence at UN on Ethiopia's Zone 9 Bloggers and Others, Selective Views

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 1 -- Amid news that Egypt is extraditing journalist Peter Greste, statements are churning out from all corners. If UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon chimes in, however, he should explain his silence this week while in Ethiopia about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  (While Mohammed Fahmy may be renouncing his Egyptian co-citizenship to follow Greste, the situation of Mohammed Baher must also be resolved, and the journalist released - like others.)

  When the UN held a “Social Media Summit” on January 30, it concluded with a panel about trends, from mobile to analytics to video and Facebook's acquisition of Snapchat. 

  But what about the UN defending or at least speaking up for freedom of expression on the Internet?

  Earlier on January 30, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban while in Ethiopia for the African Union summit had not raised the terrorism charges brought against the Zone 9 Bloggers.Video here.

   Dujarric said Ban has spoken elsewhere about freedom of expression in Africa, and that the (other) contents of his AU speech were interesting. 

   So Inner City Press went to the #SocialUN final panel and asked, does the UN do enough to speak up for freedom in social media? One of the panelists had just finished praising high tech in Qatar. What about arrests for insulting the leader? What about Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain? Video here.

  Panelist Hayes Brown of BuzzFeed, who advised and practices Be a Person on Twitter, including baking and (good) jokes, said it is hard for the UN, since it has member states that pay its bills. He said he agreed about bloggers in Ethiopia but wasn't sure what the UN could do, beyond speaking up.

  Well, as to the Zone 9 Bloggers, the UN has yet to speak up. That would be a start.

  Panelist Liz Borod Wight, who moderator Sree Sreenivasan marveled is paid to do Instagram for the BBC, cites those who tweeted #JeSuisCharlie and said those who have freedom of expression should use it.

  Panelist Adam Glenn from CUNY Journalism School said, hoping not to offend the hosts the UN, that the UN should ensure that all of its staff have training and can tweet.

  Inner City Press and FUNCA note, for example, that a UN staffer in South Sudan abruptly stopped tweeting after she tweeted this: "#breaking Lou Nuer youth are mobilising in big numbers leaving #Akobo town empty heading towards Dengjok #Southsudan."

   As Inner City Press reported at the time, after Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen raised this alarm, the tweet and her Twitter account profile both disappeared. So much for Rights Up Front.

  At the end of the panel a UN staffer took the floor to acknowledge that UN staff cannot tweet what they think. But can't Ban Ki-moon say what he thinks? Or doesn't he think it? We'll have more on this.

    

Amid #SocialUN, Ban Ki-moon Silent on #FreeZone9Bloggers, Panelists Answer FUNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30 -- When the UN held a “Social Media Summit” on January 30, it concluded with a panel about trends, from mobile to analytics to video and Facebook's acquisition of Snapchat. 

  But what about the UN defending or at least speaking up for freedom of expression on the Internet?

  Earlier on January 30, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban while in Ethiopia for the African Union summit had not raised the terrorism charges brought against the Zone 9 Bloggers.Video here.

   Dujarric said Ban has spoken elsewhere about freedom of expression in Africa, and that the (other) contents of his AU speech were interesting. 

   So Inner City Press went to the #SocialUN final panel and asked, does the UN do enough to speak up for freedom in social media? One of the panelists had just finished praising high tech in Qatar. What about arrests for insulting the leader? What about Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain?

  Panelist Hayes Brown of BuzzFeed, who advised and practices Be a Person on Twitter, including baking and (good) jokes, said it is hard for the UN, since it has member states that pay its bills. He said he agreed about bloggers in Ethiopia but wasn't sure what the UN could do, beyond speaking up.

  Well, as to the Zone 9 Bloggers, the UN has yet to speak up. That would be a start.

  Panelist Liz Borod Wight, who moderator Sree Sreenivasan marveled is paid to do Instagram for the BBC, cites those who tweeted #JeSuisCharlie and said those who have freedom of expression should use it.

  Panelist Adam Glenn from CUNY Journalism School said, hoping not to offend the hosts the UN, that the UN should ensure that all of its staff have training and can tweet.

  Inner City Press and FUNCA note, for example, that a UN staffer in South Sudan abruptly stopped tweeting after she tweeted this: "#breaking Lou Nuer youth are mobilising in big numbers leaving #Akobo town empty heading towards Dengjok #Southsudan."

   As Inner City Press reported at the time, after Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen raised this alarm, the tweet and her Twitter account profile both disappeared. So much for Rights Up Front.

  At the end of the panel a UN staffer took the floor to acknowledge that UN staff cannot tweet what they think. But can't Ban Ki-moon say what he thinks? Or doesn't he think it? We'll have more on this.