AP Sold UN's Photos Of Ivanka / Guterres Meeting, ICP Finds Reuters & AFP Calling UN Photos Theirs

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Series

UNITED NATIONS, August 2 – When Ivanka Trump met UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on July 28, it was not listed in the UN Media Alert. But Guterres had UN Photo, a UN in-house unit of the UN Department of Public Information, come and document the ceremonial handshake. These photos soon turned up on Associated Press, for sale (like so much else at the UN, particularly at DPI whose director took now convicted Macau businessman Ng Lap Seng's funds even for the UN's slavery memorial, audit here.)  

Now while the UN has belatedly told Inner City Press that how its Ivanka Trump photos showed up on AP is "not normal" and is being looked into - the UN Spokesman on August 2 told Inner City Press is is all about AP - there's more. UN Photo material has been used by Reuters and Agence France Presse (AFP) with NO MENTION of the UN, see here(RIP) and here. Both have permanent seats on the executive committee of the UN Correspondents Association. We'll have more on this. 

The Ivanka Trump photos were listed as UN photographer's name "via AP" - but worse, in a previous case, [unmasker] Samantha Power photos showed up on AP with a the name of a photographer paid by the UN, without any mention of UN Photo, here. This is a trend. Inner City Press, for the Free UN Coalition for Access, emailed UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: "When UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres met on July 28 with Ivanka Trump, it was not in the UN Media Alert. However, photo(s) taken by UN Photo appear to have been provided to Associated Press, which put them up for sale. This is a request from the Free UN Coalition for Access for you as UN spokesperson (and former DPI official) to explain both why this meeting was not on the UN Media Alert, and the apparent disparate treatment of some UN media, giving the exclusive photos to AP. Did the UN or any of its staff or contractors charge money for this? On deadline. Please confirm receipt." Dujarric as is his custom neither answered nor confirmed receipt. So at the August 1 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked him again. From the UN transcript: Inner City Press: something that I had emailed you, but I will ask you now.  There was a meeting on Friday between the Secretary-General before he left and Ivanka Trump.  And it wasn't on the Media Alert, but apparently UN Photo was there, but then some people noticed that AP was selling the photos…

Spokesman:  I'm aware of the situation with the AP, which is not normal, and we are in touch with them.
Inner City Press: Can you, are you going to answer like how it happened?  Was money charged?

Spokesman:  I said it's not normal and we are in touch with them.  Obviously, no one is allowed to sell or distribute photos taken by UN photographers without giving proper credit, and no one is allowed to sell those photos.  As I said, we are in touch with them.

Inner City Press:  Why was it…?

Spokesman:  It was a private lunch.  We will go to our guest now.

   A wire service insider said audibly that AP's long time bureau chief was being accused, perhaps even attacked (the trope DPI's and Dujarric's partners in the UN Correspondents Association board like to use). But it is a simple and obvious questions, and one that we will pursue the answer to. Watch this site. The slow pace of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres' reforms and appointments, particularly on Africa, are been brought into focus by his just began two week vacation, undisclosed under Inner City Press asked about it. The Special Adviser on Africa position has been vacant and "ad interim" for almost as long as the Department of Public Information, at four months. Inner City Press learned on July 31 that the Africa Adviser position was offered to the now-ongoing head of UN Women; her continuing in her UN Women post is the justification for non action. But what about the Africa positions in the Department of Political Affairs, UNDP and even on Genocide? What about DPI, where Maher Nasser as "ad interim" for four months has yet to take any action on Inner City Press April 1 request to him, and more recentlyconfirmed received by Guterres, to reverse 18 months of censorship? This is a trend: Inner City Press asked  Guterres why he hasn't released his budget speech, or reform plans on May 25, the day after Guterres' holdover spokesman Stephane Dujarric refused to provide the speech to Inner City Press when it asked. Guterres paused then said it should be public, seeming to believe that Dujarric had, in fact, released it. Video here. But he had not and has not. And now with Guterres gone on an UNdisclosed two week vacation, on July 31 Inner City Press sought to cover the UN Security Council End of Presidency reception it was invited to - but had to leave after 15 minutes, to meet the UN Department of Public Information's 7 pm censorship deadline imposed on it for 18 months and counting for asking, including then DPI chief Cristina Gallach, about UN corruption. As Inner City Press left, DPI's Hua Jiang gave  greeting. But it is her department which continues to restrict and censor Inner City Press. It is shameful. On July 19, Guterres spokesman Farhan Haq refused to even tell Inner City Press WHERE Guterres would meet about reform. On July 26, Guterres' postponed Town Hall was listed as "Closed" - thankfully, one of his Assistant Secretaries General publicly tweeted the link. (So, see Periscope video here). Questions were raised about racial discrimination in the UN, specifically the case against UNHABITAT's Joan Clos that Inner City Press has repeatedly asked about. Guterres seemed not to be familiar with it; he said he is protecting whistleblwoers but Mirando Brown and Emma Reilly, following Anders Kompass, would disagree, and there are no Press protections. The Pension Fund CEO is refusing to seat two staff representatives and Guterres says he has no power to change that. Inner City Press asked Guterres' spokesman Farhan Haq about these issues. Haq said that the OIOS investigation of Clos' comments is ongoing - this is not what Clos has implied, some time ago - and on the Pension Fund, he mentioned Ms. Boykin. But her job has been advertised. So does Guterres have the power to defend staff's rights or not? Guterres is "pausing" mobility, and proposing changes to the Departments of Management and Field Support. We'll have more on this. From the UN July 19 transcript: Inner City Press: this retreat that the Secretary-General is planning for 22 July, will you confirm that it's at Greentree?  And number two, are all Member States invited, or are groups invited?  And some Member States have said there was a meeting with something called the Group of Friends of the Future of the United Nations.  Is… did that meeting take place?  Because I looked at his schedule, and I never saw it.  Was such a meeting held?  And was it about reform?

Deputy Spokesman:  This meeting on 22 July is part of the effort to discuss the reforms of the United Nations.  It is, in fact, with all Member States, and it's not at a location that I disclosed, but it's in the New York area. 

  UNreal. Also that Guterres, who has only held one solo press conference at headquarters since his election, is said to hold none until September, vacation at some undisclosed dates in August. This lack of transparency is not allow of other leaders. We ad FUNCA will have more on this. Diplomats from a number of countries have complained to Inner City Press about it, for example that in the run-up to Guterres' "retreat" with member states on July 22 at the Greentree estate where many of the now-failed UN Cyprus talks took place, there is "no document, no document at all." Instead, there are letters making the rounds: one to Guterres' chief of staff, another offering Guterres support as a European and a shorter US letter. Yes, reform of the UN would require less buck-passing, like Guterres has done on the outrage of the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization helping North Korea with cyanide patents and using criminal defamation law against the press. The need for reform is also shown every day in the Ng Lap Seng / John Ashe prosecution which Inner City Press has been covering, here. But Guterres has yet to be transparent, or to end censorship by his Secretariat. We'll have more on this. 

   It was Dujarric who evicted Inner City Press, and has kept it restricted in its movements in the UN for the more than 200 days so far of Guterres' tenure. On May 25, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again, video here

On May 25, an NGO representative who corresponded"secretly" with Dujarric to get Inner City Press evicted and restricted was allowed onto the UN's second floor without the UN minders imposed on Inner City Press. This is UNtransparent. Why and how has UN censorship continued, without hearing or appeal?

After Kunduz Hospital US Bombing, Now Associated Press "Deletes" Rifles From Its Story, UN Security Council Still Silent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 5, more here – In the days after repeated airstrikes by the US destroyed the MSF hospital in Kunduz killing doctors and patients, the UN Security Council was notably silent.

  US-based Associated Press, in reporting on the bombing, corrected its story with this disclosure at the bottom: "This story deletes a reference to weaponry in the hospital windows as seen in AP video after further review of the images cast doubt on whether they were rifles and a machine gun or simply charred debris from the bombing."

  In UN beyond the Security Council, the sequence of statements of condemnation began with Rights Commissioner Zeid, then Ban Ki-moon, then Aid Chief Stephen O'Brien. Some wondered why not the UN Department of Political Affairs, which runs the UNAMA mission in the country, headed by American Jeffrey Feltman.

  Obama chimed in, saying that he's asked the Department of Defense to keep him informed of the investigation. Imagine, some asked, if the new strikes in Syria caused such carnage: would saying "we are investigating" be enough? 

  And still, as of 3 am on October 5 in New York, there was no statement by the UN Security Council. 

  On US Sunday morning television on October 4, former US military figure Jack Keane said it must have been an "errant missile" or mis-targeting. But why then did the attacks go on for an hour, even as MSF called the US?

 This was followed on October 4 by statement by the acting Kunduz governor that the hospital was a Taliban base. MSF fired back:

"MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.

This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimize the attack as 'collateral damage.'

There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and independent international investigation."

 So who will do the investigation? 

Background: Following up on Inner City Press exclusive publication of UN Development Program audits of its Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan, including double payments and other irregularities, whistleblowers this past summer exclusively provided Inner City Press with yet more damning documents. 

   On August 15, 2014 UNDP belatedly specified that "there is an ongoing investigation related to issues raised in documents published by Inner City Press" - but again uses this as a rationale for the lack of response not only by UNDP but also the UNAMA mission and UN Department of Safety and Security.

  On fifty five days later, despite two more requests from Inner City Press, UNDP has nothing on any results of its investigation. It has provided its response to the October 6 release by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction -- which says (other) audits will be released by the end of the year.

  When will any of these audits, including one promised in early September about Rwanda ghost consultancies, be released? 

  Inner City Press asked at the October 10 noon briefing, then in writing: "this is a request for UNDP's response to SIGAR's allegations -- and for the results of the probes UNDP answered on August 15 then in early September, about Afghanistan and Rwanda."

  The latter two have yet to be answered, other than "let me check and I will get back to you." On SIGAR, UNDP says "we will make publicly available an audit of our oversight of the monitoring agent before the end of this year." (The rest should go here.)

  On Rwanda ghost consultancies, UNDP told Inner City Press on September 3, "The results of the investigation will be available once it is complete." It has not been made available; nor has any update yet been provided. 

   As to what the documents and "issues raised" regarding Afghanistan are, see for now here, here, here and here, exclusively provided to Inner City Press by now-former UNDP staff. There are more documents, one more of which was published today, here.

In it, the same Colonel Bashary who threatened he would not tolerate these accusation turns up on the list of double payments. 

  This publication follows four days in which UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, formerly UNDP's spokesman, had not said whether an audit cited as a justification for not answering is the troubling audit completed in February 2014. 

  After Inner City Press asked again on August 15, UNDP's Dylan Lowthian provided this response, which we publish in full:

The 'Security Gap Project' (SGAP) which you have previously referred to was established to enhance security for all United Nations personnel working in Afghanistan. SGAP supported the Government to develop dedicated protection services to the United Nations to enable reconstruction, development and humanitarian activities to be carried out.

SGAP closed at the end of 2013. An audit of the project was carried out by Grant Thornton beginning in October 2013 and was completed in January 2014. Upon completion, the audit was issued in February 2014 and in-keeping with our commitment to transparency and accountability, was subsequently published on the UNDP global website, where it is publicly available to download. Audits are an essential part of our control mechanisms. They are conducted in order to identify both strengths and weaknesses in our programs as a way to increase our overall performance.

There is no second audit of the SGAP project.

As outlined by the Deputy Spokesperson at the briefing on Friday 8 August, there is an ongoing investigation related to issues raised in documents published by Inner City Press. In order to avoid jeopardizing the investigation process, the details of investigations are kept confidential and very limited information is made available to offices outside the UNDP Independent Office of Audit and Investigation, until the process of gathering relevant evidence and fact-finding has been completed. Should the matter be substantiated, the evidence gathered by the Office of Audit and Investigation will form the basis of remedial action.

  We'll have more on this. For now, Inner City Press is informed that now "the heat is on at the Kabul office" -- this is called a cover-up, and retaliation against (the wrong) whistleblowers.

 The UNDP Independent Office of Audit and Investigation COMPLETED an audit of this Closing the Security Gap on February 12, 2014, Report Number 1251, here.

  That report noted "incomplete recording of expenditure incurred in 2012. Salaries were not charged to the Project for the first
five months of 2012; lack of appropriate audit evidence on fuel charges amounting to $60,715 and rent expenses of $13,589; overstatement of indirect program support costs by $21,737."

   First, it was and is unacceptable for this UN to say it will not respond to troubling documents because it is conducting its own audit or "investigation," with no completion date named and no commitment to make it public. The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposing and seeking to reverse this UN descent into obfuscation and stonewalling.

  Inner City Press asked Dujarric on August 11:

Inner City Press: last week there was some back and forth about the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) programmes in Afghanistan that resulted in Farhan [Haq] on Friday saying that an audit is ongoing, and while the audit is ongoing, there will be no comment.  At least that’s how I interpreted it.  But, I’ve looked into it and it turns out that there was an audit that was completed of this very program called “Closing the Security Gap” project, finished in February of this year by Grant Thorton.  It made a lot of negative findings, but… it wasn’t clear to me, since UNDP never directly answered the questions, is this audit that’s being cited the old audit?  Is there a new audit?  If there’s a new audit of the same programme, how much was paid for the former audit?  And can you explain how it’s appropriate for the Secretariat to not answer questions about DSS [Department of Safety and Security] and UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] by referring to a UNDP audit that may already be completed?

Spokesman Dujarric:   My short answer is, show me what you have, what you’re referring to and I’m happy to look into it because I’m a little confused by the number of audits myself.

  Inner City Press immediately emailed the audit to Dujarric, along with these three questions:

1) is this the audit Farhan / UNDP were referring to at Friday's noon briefing and justifying not answering questions about DSS and UNAMA?

2) if a second audit of the Closing the Security Gap Project is underway, why? And, either way, how much was paid for the Grant Thorton Audit?

3) This is a requests for the Secretariat to respond to the references to DSS and UNAMA in the documents Farhan was responding to on Friday.

  There was no answer. Inner City Press asked Dujarric again on August 13:

Inner City Press: I’d asked you on Monday about this UNDP audit that was cited as a reason they were not answering a questions about [Department of Safety and Security] and UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan].  Have you been able to find out from them whether this February 2014 audit was the one that they’re citing now or is there a new audit?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I haven’t had a chance to actually follow-up but I will. 

 Two day later, nothing. So Inner City Press asked yet again.

 Before publishing any of the documents, Inner City Press posed questions to five UNDP spokespeople. But none even confirmed receipt -- including Abdel-Rahman Ghandour, the spokesperson who belatedly responded to Inner City Press' previous LOTFA exclusives.

 What changed, other than Inner City Press' subsequent reporting on UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's layoff campaign, and these new troubling questions?

 The questions were sent on August 5 to the following, without response for 72 hours: lead spokesperson Dheepa Pandian (out of the office from August 1 to 18), Mila Rosenthal and Helen Clark's personal spokesperson Christina Lo Nigro.

  After Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq to reply about the UN Secretariat's own role, Haq on August 8 read a statement from UNDP -- there will be no answer pending a UNDP audit. Video here.

   This is pure stonewalling. And can Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretariat's Department of Safety and Security and UNAMA Mission hide behind a UNDP investigation that may never be public? 

   After Haq refused another Inner City Press question, after the UNTV cameras turned off, Haq told Inner City Press that UNDP refused to answer the August 5 questions, below, due to "your people skills." Inner City Press deals perfectly well with numerous diplomats at the UN and many others -- but UNDP and some UN officials don't like hard questions and think they can simply stonewall, in the UN's Zone of Impunity.

   Seventy two hours in, while the UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon said it wouldn't answer about the role of its own Department of Safety and Security and UNAMA mission while UNDP answers, August 6 and 7 video here -- UNDP had provided no answer at all.

   This despite UNDP Administrator Helen Clark having been subject to formal governmental requests about related UNDP irregularities in Afghanistan in May. Is this any way to run for UN Secretary General?

  The fourth document, exclusively published here, makes even more clear why Bann Ki-moon's Secretariat must respond. The document describes double payments then introduces one "Colonel Bashary," who threatens not to talk about corruption, "I will not tolerate these accusations." Click here to view.

  In Afghanistan as Inner City Press exclusively dug into, UN Security official Louis Maxwell was killed, presumptively by Afghan Forces -- and the UN has obtained zero accountability for this killed staff member. Inner City Press has put questions about Louis Maxwell toDeputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, who to his credit responded, and to current Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura, here.

Now: why would the UN be telling a whistle-blower to "just let it be," then refusing to answer? 

  The third document, exclusively published here, concerns "'Ghost Staffing' at the UN Protective Force," about which the UN Department of Safety and Security said, "Just let it be for now." Click here to view.

    On August 5, Inner City Press exclusively published this one, linking it to the LOTFA scandal: an official "was again advised that it may be illegal for salaried police officials to take cash payments to augment their salaries" but the adviser was told it was "no longer my priority under LOTFA and that I was no longer to address these issues with DPII or DSS."

  This and the other documents indicate that little was fixed, that UNDP goes after whistleblowers, and does not follow up even when for example it is involved in visa fraud. 

   Inner City Press on morning of August 5 asked no fewer than four spokespeople at UNDP, including the personal spokesperson for UNDP Administrator (and UNSG candidate) Helen Clark for their response to the below. 

 There had been no answers. Inner City Press exclusively published the second document, here: about payments by UNAMA / UNDSS to fully salaried Afghan forces. Click here.

  Both UNAMA and UNDSS are run by Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat, so Ban's spokespeople must answer. UNDP's Helen Clark herself has refused official inquiry about these irregularities. So on August 6 Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: The payments by UNDSS (Department of Safety and Security) and UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) in Afghanistan to members of the Ministry of Interior and other Afghan forces that are already under full salary by the Government. Various documents have come out that show an internal UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) whistle blower seeking to raise these issues within UNDP because, I guess, because as the country team, or whatever. But the documents list, they name UNDSS, they name UNAMA, and basically the person was told, “Don’t raise this anymore.” So, I was anticipating you to say “Ask UNDP”. And I have more than 24 hours ago. I don’t have any answer from them. But I want to ask you, because the documents are not just about UNDP, but about DSS and UNAMA, is it… what are the rules? Is it UN’s, DPKO’s (Department of Peacekeeping Operations), DPA’s (Department of Political Affairs) and DSS’s understanding that Afghan forces shouldn’t receive out double payments. If this information came to light, I think it did, what was done about it? That’s my question to you. I don’t know if you get an answer today. Is it possible?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: As I’m sure you’ve anticipated, and indeed you said you anticipated, yes, I’m aware that UN Development Programme is in touch with you on this. They’ve informed you that they will get back to you. And so, we will first have to wait for what their reply is. First ask them.

Inner City Press: How long --

Deputy Spokesman: No, no. It’s no use trying to get the two of us talk at cross purposes with each other. UNDP will get back to you.

  That UNDP "is in touch with you" was and is not true: there has been no response at all. The statement UNDP "will get to you" remains unfulfilled. This is today's UN system -- even when UN system staff unions wrote to Ban Ki-moon about Helen Clark, and Inner City Press repeated asked about the letter, there has been no response.

  Here is what Inner City Press asked on August 5, no answer:

This is an Inner City Press Press request on deadline for UNDP's comment / response to the following narrative provided to us by UNDP whistleblowers:

UNDP purchased $100,000 in fuel for a special police unit and it was discovered that some or all of the fuel was stolen by the police. The project manager - chief technical adviser for the project refused to purchase another allocation of fuel due to this reported corruption. Refusing to purchase this additional fuel caused problems between the project manager - chief technical adviser and the chief of UN security in Afghanistan.

This followed with reports that several vehicles purchased by this same UNDP project and given to this same special police unit were not being used for the unit but had instead been given as political gifts or other reasons to other offices of the Afghan government. After giving these vehicles to higher ranking officials the Colonel of this special police unit was promoted to General.

The project manager - chief technical adviser reported this and nothing happened. As part of the review which discovered this the corruption of payments made by the UN security office in Afghanistan to the special police unit was also discovered and reported.

 This is also a request for UNDP response / comment on another issue, of visa overstay, also on deadline:

UNDP's staff from Afghanistan have not returned to their duty station after being granted visas to attend/participate in the recent UN Games in the USA. UNDP supported the official/G4 visas for all of these Afghan nationals and now they have remained behind in the USA... How can the organization justify sending a dozen people half-way around the world to compete in 'UN Games'? How many of them were given business class tickets since the travel exceeds the 9 hour standard? Is this a proper use of public monies? How can an office so critical to the development of Afghanistan in this time of change see it as beneficial for a dozen of their staff to go on a paid junket to the USA?

1. Lailuma Shirzad (procurement) - overstay in USA.

2. Abdul Hamid Karimi (procurement) - presumably in UK

3. Idrees Sherzai (HR) - went to US, but crossed the border and is now in Canada

4. Shahkhalid Yousafzai - went to US, but crossed the border and is now in Canada

This is on deadline. This is also a request for UNDP's response to thestaff survey and the critique(s) of the restructuring / layoffs. 

  On the visas we can for now add: There are 3 more from ELECT Project and 3 to 4 from Information Communications and Technology Unit whom whistleblowers say have also overstayed their visas. We plan to have more. Watch this site.

   

On Mali After Ladsous Blocks Filming at Stakeout, Spins to Scribes, Censors

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, video here -- When UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous arrived at the General Assembly stakeout 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 walked away, summoning friendly media with him and canceling the public stakeout.

   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?

  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 here, UK 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.

   

In Ukraine Ban Ki-moon Met Svoboda Party Leader, But at UN in NY, Ban Takes Only Western Questions, Voice of America (& AP, Bloomberg, CBS/ UNCA)

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came to take questions from the media about his trip to and briefing on Ukraine, he mentioned the word "radical."

  It was inevitable: as Inner City Press first reported, while in Kyiv Ban met with the leader of the Svodoba Party, adjudged as both racist and anti-Semitic and most recently beating up a television executive then getting the footage censored from YouTube via a bogus Millennium Digital Copyright Act complaint.

  In fact, on March 27 at the UN General Assembly stakeout Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Inner City Press Ban's meeting was "disturbing" and that he looked forward to an explanation in the March 28 Security Council consultations. Video here. (We hope to have more on this.)

  At the March 28 noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban had known in advance that Svoboda's leader would be present, and if he would address it at the stakeout. Video here.

  Haq declined to provide anything more than the list of parties Ban met with, which was provided after Inner City Press repeatedly asked over two days.

   But when Ban came to speak after briefing the Council, the questioners chosen were AP, CBS (or, the UN's Censorship Alliance), Bloomberg and Voice of America. While noting as an aside that Voice of America tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of Ban's UN, in a request to Ban's now-spokesman,click here, big picture, all four questioners selected by / for Ban were Western -- all US-based, in fact. Ban was not asked about the Svoboda meeting.

   Moments later, Inner City Press asked outgoing Security Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg about Ban meeting Svoboda. She said, among other things, that You should have asked the Secretary General.

  But how? We'll have more on this.

   On March 27 when the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution rejecting the Crimea referendum, it was far from unanimous. There were 100 countries for, 11 against and fully 58 abstaining.

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Russia Ambassador Vitaly Churkin about citation in the meeting of Kosovo as a precedent, and about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon having met the leader of the Svoboda Party.

  Churkin took issue with a high US official claiming there was a referendum in Kosovo, and expressed concern about Ban meeting with a party deemed among other things racist and anti-Semitic.

   Inner City Press ran, before 12:10 pm, to the UN noon briefing in order to ask these and other questions. But Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq had begun and ended the briefing before 12:09. 

   This contrasts to Ban's Spokesperson's Office having, for example in October 2013, delayed the noon briefing so that a(nother) country's speech could be covered, click here for that.

  When asked on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Accesswhat the Spokesperson's Office policy is, Haq said, "You want a policy where it's all about you." We'll have more on this.

  In the GA meeting beyond Kosovo, Nicaragua cited the Honduras coup as an analogy. St. Vincent's cited Grenada, saying the positions are reversed but abstaining because the Ukraine resolution is about the principals, not the principles.

  Uruguay cited Kosovo and also the referendum carried out in the Malvinas / Falkland Islands. UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant was in the room, and tweeted at; if there's a response we'll publish.

   Earlier it was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when theInternational Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

 Inner City Press asked the IMF to confirm or comment on reports that the Ukrainian "increase the price of natural gas for household consumers by an average of 50%" is attributable to the IMF. 

  At the IMF's 9:30 am embargoed briefing, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out the question then said that the program has five components, including energy sector reform.

  He said Ukraine will reduce subsidies to the energy sector, and that current prices in Ukraine are two to three times lower than in neighboring countries. He said, as it did to other questions, that responses were given in a press conference in Kyiv.

 In New York at the UN, a General Assembly meeting started at 10 am. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recounted history and said radicals "called the shots" in the change of government. We've noted that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with the leader of the Svoboda party while in Kyiv.

  In Washington later on March 27 the US Congress is expected to act on a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine, but not on the IMF changes the Obama administration requested. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement welcoming the IMF preliminary deal, concluding that "We also remain committed to providing the IMF with the resources it needs – in partnership with Congress – to provide strong support to countries like Ukraine as well as reinforcing the Fund’s governance to reflect the global economy."

  Two weeks ago on March 13, the day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true. Video here, from Minute 12:05.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on. 

 And on March 27, for example, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out this question from Inner City Press:

"On Zimbabwe, please confirm IMF is re-opening its office and respond to Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa saying part of the deal included cutting Zimbabwe's wage bill from 70 percent of the budget but this pledge will not be met, 'addressing it overnight would mean very drastic measures which I indicated to them (IMF) I am not prepared to take. That would mean retrenchment of civil servants.'"

  On March 27, Murray said he would not comment directly on what the Finance Minister said, but pointed to a press release we will add a link to.

  Back on March 13 in another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information.Video here, from Minute 31:12.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

  

On Syria at UN, Ban Ki-moon Holds UNbalanced 5-Question Presser With Jarba's Host & Little New: Bid for TV, Race for Relevance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 9 -- When the UN announced Ban Ki-moon would hold a press conference Monday at 11:30 am, some understandably assumed that he had news on Syria.

But with the room full of correspondents, Ban said "I have not yet received the report from Dr. Sellstrom, nor do I know what it will contain."

  Someone softly asked, then why are we here? The breaking news of the morning was Russia's Sergey Lavrov proposing that Syria give its chemical weapons stockpiles to the UN. But Ban's statement had nothing on that.

  After Ban's canned statement, he took a total of five questions. This was more than the two questions he took last Tuesday, also canceling the day's UN noon briefing on places the UN actually has an impact, like in Eastern Congo where the UN is selectively targeting some armed groups (M23) and not others (FDLR).

  Inner City Press had put its name on the question list. But only five were taken, and it was far from balance. The first question, by some unwritten and now archaic and indefensible rule, went to Pamela Falk of CBS, as the president of the UN Correspondents Association.

  One problem here is that under Falk, UNCA sponsored a faux "UN briefing" in late July by Saudi sponsored Syria rebel boss Jarba. The UN has refused to clarify on what basis it gives UNCA the big room it was held in, publicized only to those who pay money, and if it was a "UN briefing."

  Next was an UNCA Executive Committee member from L'Orient le Jour on whom we will not comment. Then Al Jazeera, which alongside excellent reporting on Haiti and the like totes the Qatari royal family's line on most things Middle East. Then two US media, Fox and Associated Press. And that was it.

  What was the goal of this exercise? It seems to have been to get Ban Ki-moon some face time on television, on the day Obama goes on six times, and Charlie Rose' interview with Assad (reviewed here by Inner City Press) goes on PBS. 

  It was like the UN's Saturday briefing on August 31 - because it was an hour and a half before Obama spoke, or was scheduled to start, in the Rose Garden, it was picked up all over. The UN has a built-in bully pulpit. But how is it being used? Watch this site.