At UN, As France Joins Arms Trade Treaty, Selling Warships to Russia Despite Its Own UNSC Speeches

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- One year after the Arms Trade Treaty passed with more than 20 abstentions, countries came back to the UN to deposit documents with the UN Office of Legal Affairs and join.

  Among the joiners was France, which before last year's vote had air-dropped weapons into the Nafusa Mountains in Libya. Now there was an even more clear and pressing questions.

  Given France's speeches this year in the Security Council about Russia, how is its move to sell Mistral warships to Russia consistent with the Arms Trade Treaty? What does it mean?

  A year ago in the UN General Assembly there were more than 20 abstentions, including the two most populous countries on Earth, China and India, and the most populous predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia.

Afterward, Inner City Press asked ATT president Peter Woolcott, after thanking him on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, about criticism of his allowing, before a promised ruling, Mexico and others to make an argument against the UN meaning of consensus. 

  He replied that there was a speakers list that he followed. He said he personally does not favor negotiating under the rule of consensus. Other might say: it showed.

 Inner City Press asked Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, who gave a thoughtful answer about "no vetoes," that may resonate in the UN Budget Committee.

   It was announced that Angola did not abstain, but voted Yes (hence, 22 abstentions, still quite populous.)In speeches before Tuesday's vote, as Syria's Bashar Ja'afari spoke, US Ambassador Susan Rice was walking out. After that, a full hour into the speeches, Qatar's delegation rolled in. They ended up abstaining. Qatar supports rebels in Syria.

Sudan on the other hand said it was abstaining, citing the failure to address the arming of “mutinous” groups, like the SPLM-North and rebels in Darfur.

Russia, which by a point of order Thursday night put an end to the Mexico-launched attempt to redefine consensus, on Tuesday morning zeroed in on what knowledge of genocide might mean, in Article 6.3. Its Ambassador Churkin said Russia would not have broken consensus on March 28, but would now abstain, as did China. It's hard to call this consensus. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, ICP Asks UK Burt & Australia's JuliaBishop About CHOGM, They Claim Both It Wiill Spotlight Human Rights Issues

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 -- Last night, when Sri Lanka president Mahinda Rajapaksa and military figure Shavendra Silva met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, there was also a reception by the UK and Australia for the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo. But what was the place of accountability for the civilians killed in 2009?

  Inner City Press asked new Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop and UK minister Alistair Burt about human rights. Burt said that the position of the UK is that it is firstly about the Commonwealth -- but human rights in Sri Lanka are important.

  Burt cited the LLRC and "whether or not" the pathway to reconciliation is being met. He said CHOGM would allow review of "those areas were there are some concerns about what is happening there." Tweeted Burt & Bishop photo here.

  Bishop said it is a bipartisan position in Australia that "we continue to engage, rather than isolate... More can be achieved." 

 She said she visited Sri Lanka this year, "there is a way to go in reconciliation, in terms of restructuring of the country." She urged visits outside of Colombo, particularly to the north. She said now the "TNA has the challenge of delivering services in the North, scene of such bloody conflict."

  Yes, Shavendra Silva directly played a role in that, and Mahinda Rajapaksa ordered it. So where's the accountability?

  At Wednesday's UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky if Shavendra Silva, after turning tail, returned and attended the meeting with Ban. Nesirky did not answer, saying it should be asked of the Mission. 

  Inner City Press tweeted the question at Mahinda Rajapaksa during his #AskMR session on Wednesday; so far no answer.

Inner City Press asked how the Arms Trade Treaty would apply to arming the Syria rebels. Australia's Julie Bishop, with Ambassador Gary Quinlan and his counterpart in Geneva standing to the side. 

  She said that signatories will have obligations, and we'll expect them to honor those obligations. Fine -- like France air dropping weapons into Libya's Nafusa Mountains? She said the US represents 80% of the world trade in arms - which seems high. Watch this site.

   

As UK Presides Over Press Banning from UN Security Council, Going Social One Week, #UKPres

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 4 -- The UK at the UN are an idealistic lot, but in a conflicted way.

  As they revive the Security Council "horizon scanning" briefing for their Presidency in June, we too will scan their horizon, through the first week of their month.

  They say they want to be open: but only so far, and only in their way. They provide information, but often only those friendly to them, in a way that is controlling.

  We begin as we must by noting that Monday they presided over the first day in years in which a media worktable was not only not present, but was actively discouraged and seized, in front of the Council.

  The Mission saw this coming, even talked with members of the press corps on both sides of the issue -- shocking that there is an "anti-access" side among the media, but that's another story, one that we will tell this week as well -- but still it happened.

  As the UK began its bilateral meetings with other Missions on June 3, for the first time in years there was no table. Various Missions, to the level of Permanent Representative, commented on it and said it should not stand. 

  But the UK seemed to think it was funny. Even after a small replacement table bought and brought by the new Free UN Coalition for Access was seized and taken away by the UN Department of Public Information, there was levity.

  Later on Monday Inner City Press was told not to engage in "personalization" in articles. But who to report without naming names? And with the UK so savvy now in social media, how not to name the handles? 

   So this is how we'll do it, setting the deadline of the week: we'll cover the UK in precisely the way they have decided to make themselves available: not with media workspace presence in front of the Council, but through social media. And it will, as it must, be personal. One new name per story.

  Mark Lyall Grant rather than the ritual 12:30 press conference has moved it, and is having one online from 2:30 to 3, complete with hashtag. We'll be there, via hashtag. Can you spell #UNfreePress?

  Even over the weekend, the UK went public with a press statement it proposed about Qusayr in Syria, then selectively blamed one Mission for blocking it. (Inner City Press spoke with that Mission on Monday and heard their side of things: in person, not online.)

  The UK told some resident correspondents perceived as friendly the minister Alistair Burt would go do a stakeout about the Arms Trade Treaty. The goal, it seems, was to not have to answer the obvious contradiction: it was the UK that sought the "flexibility" to arm the Syrian rebels, whiletrumpeting the ATT. 

  The ICRC calls it inconsistent, but who's counting? Control Arms apparently doesn't.

  Back in May, for Press Freedom Day, the UK put on its Tumblr page the statements of favored correspondents, presumably though it thought represent free press. 

  But as we'll show this week, at least two of them have openly been quite anti-press, trying to get others thrown out of the UN, trolling and accusing journalist which whom they don't agree of being funded by Assad or, pertinent to the UK, by the defunct Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. 

  The UK Mission knows or should have known about this: but friends are friends, useful pass-throughs are just that. Press Freedom Day indeed.

  The issue of the table is telling. It was there before the Council moved, and during the relocation. The UK has presided, literally, over its elimination. It's a week of moves and getting settled in, Inner City Press is told. A week? We'll see. Watch this site.

Lawless UN Has No Answer on Haiti, Threatens for Free Speech, Favors Sycophants

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- This UN has become lawless, in matters large and small. Big picture, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon tersely denied 5,000 legal claims based on the UN bringing cholera to Haiti, and has yet to respond to a letter from 19 members of the US Congress about it.

  Smaller, but just today, Ban's UN imposed a new rule of "no media workspace" in front of the UN Security Council, going so far as to seize a small work table put there by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access -- but refused to say whether the rule has gone into effect.

  The same rule would prohibit substantive FUNCA fliers about the reduction in media workspace and access -- but on Monday the UN Correspondents Association which has said nothing about the loss of a Security Council work table erected a large bulletin board. But it has nothing to say. That's just the way the UN likes it.

  From the transcript of Monday's UN noon briefing:

Inner City Press: There has been some back and forth about these media access guidelines or rules, but this morning, since there was no table, I put a small table there to work on in order to cover the bi-laterals. And returning there from the ATT [Arms Trade Treaty] stakeout, the table was gone and I was told the lady from DPI [Department of Public Information] took it. So, I am wanting to know: what are the rules? Did these rules which would seek to prohibit media workspace in front of the Security Council, have they gone into effect, or are they still being considered? And why was the small table actually used for work in covering the Council taken?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, I know you’ve had extensive exchanges both with my colleague Eduardo [del Buey], sitting here in the past couple of weeks; and also with Stéphane Dujarric. I don’t have anything to add on that at this point.

Inner City Press: the reason I ask that is just because it seems like the UN often talks about rules, and transparency and since it moved and since it was foreseeable, I wasn’t aware that there was already a ban in effect on work space. That’s why I put the table there. But it’s gone.

Spokesperson Nesirky: As I say, Matthew, I don’t have anything to add to the extensive exchanges you’ve had with a number of people, primarily with Eduardo and Stéphane. Any other questions?

Inner City Press: Would you tell us when the rules go into effect? I just wanna know when.

Spokesperson: Matthew, you can put the question any way you like; I don’t have anything further to add to the extensive exchanges you’ve already had, okay?

But these "exchanges" have not answered the basic question: have these rules gone into effect? Who agreed to them? Who drafted these paragraphs:

"f. The Security Council stakeout area, including the Turkish Lounge, is not to be used as a permanent workspace for the media. When the Council is not in session, correspondents should minimize the amount of time in the area, unless interviewing or conversing with a U.N. delegate or official."

and

"Posting of notices is restricted to the bulletin boards provided by DPI, including the UNCA bulletin board (by U.N. Correspondents Association officials), and the General Access Bulletin Board (by all accredited correspondents). Signs posted on doors are limited to entry restrictions, for example, 'do not disturb' or 'on air' or the identification of your organization. All other notices (e.g. announcement of meetings/event, press releases) are prohibited unless specifically authorized by Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU).

"Failure to adhere to guidelines in this document can be grounds for withdrawal or suspension of accreditation."

   So a journalist faces "withdrawal of accreditation" for free speech. The above has been edited to be less personal. But.. Watch this site.

As Arms Trade Treaty Is Signed, Arms to Syria "Would Be Inconsistent," ICRC Tells Inner City Press, UK Wants Flexibility

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- Amid the hoopla on UN signings of the Arms Trade Treaty, Inner City Press asked the UK's Alistair Burt, Costa Rica's minister, the Red Cross and Control Arms how the ATT's "Golden Rule" would apply to arming the rebels in Syria.

Alistair Burt replied that while the expiration of the EU's arms embargo on Syria provides "flexibility" that the UK wanted, no decision has yet been made; the goal was to increase pressure on Bashar al Assad.

But Christine Beerli of the International Committee of the Red Cross answered Inner City Press directly, that providing arms into Syria at this time would be inconsistent with the spirit of the ATT.

Control Arms' Anna MacDonald pointed out that the UK and France are already covered by the European Union's common position, requiring risk assessment. But how did that apply to France air-dropping weapons into the Nafusa Mountains in Libya?

Costa Rica's minister, meanwhile, said the situation in Syria is the perfect example to show why an Arms Trade Treaty is necessary. At least he took questions at the temporary stakeout in front of the Trusteeship Council Chamber. Mostly signers simply held signs congratulating themselves for making history. Fair enough.

The UN's Angela Kane was also on the panel, and afterward Inner City Press asked her a question about Syria. But that's another story. Watch this site.

Footnote: At the ATT press conference, the first question was taken by UN Correspondents Association president for 2013, Pamela Falk of CBS, who asked for a headcount of how many states signed but won't get ratification. (Can you say, USA?) As if the make the point, her first vice president, Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, re-asked the explicitly American question.  

 But during the morning, when the Security Council re-opened without the media workspace that existed before and during the relocation, and a small work table set up by the new Free UN Coalition for Access was seized by a "lady from DPI," Falk, Charbonneau and UNCA did nothing. We'll have more on this.

On Mali at Columbia, Nameless Discussion of Colonialism & Other Big Issues Under Outdate Chatham House Rules Superseded by Social Media

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- On Mali there was an event at Columbia University Tuesday night, advertised as “free and open to the public, but please register by writing.” So Inner City Press did, identifying itself as the Press, listing its office at the UN.

  Columbia's Stephen Wertheim, the last name you'll see in this piece, wrote back, “You are now registered for the talk, which starts at 7:30 pm. We look forward to seeing you there.”

  After that, notice of the event was further publicized on the website of the Free UN Coalition for Access, as still is another event at the UN this Thursday.

  After a final story about the day's Arms Trade Treaty vote in the UN General Assembly, Inner City Press arrived at the event. There were twenty to twenty five people, of all ages -- and all nameless here.

  After a lengthy speech and two social media missives, as the question and answer began, the moderator suddenly said -- and we'll paraphrase and not quote here -- that he should have said so from the beginning, this would be under Chatham House rules, you can use the idea but no quote.

  And so what were the ideas?

That the media focuses too much on the military offensive, which one participant called the kinetic aspect.

That there is a lot of corruption even in the south of Mali.

That the Malian military commits human rights violations, and that the UN does not have the resources to have a crew of human rights observers ready to go there.

That the UN will soon name a Special Representative of the Secretary General.

That the Malian press is reporting rumors of relations of Nicolas Sarkozy and the MNLA. (Inner City Press has been more focused on Sarkozy's hardly concealed try out to help invest Qatar's money, with his contacts in the center-right government in Spain.)

That the Security Council implicitly endorsed the French approach.

Inner City Press, which is surely free to report its own questions but apparently not the answers, asked if the envisioned “parallel force” would be under UN control; if coup leader Amadou Sanogo will continue to play a role in the Malian military, and how the fast action to defend Bamako differed from the decision to let Bagui in the Central African Republic fall.

  There was a response to each question, but how to report the answers under the spirit of the Chatham House rules is not clear. 

 As Inner City Press left it was told, despite the language of the invitation and its RSVP as the Press, that it is somehow understood that events in the university are under Chatham House rules.

  No, that is not automatically understood. People give on the record speeches at universities. In fact, since students have Facebook pages and blogs and, yes, Twitter accounts, it is entirely unclear what restriction on a class or seminar would look like, or how they could work.

  Nevertheless, Inner City Press has complied with the belatedly announced Chatham House rules. Who is served? The Security Council hears Wednesday on Mali. Watch this site.

Footnote: the UN office that Inner City Press listed on its RSVP has, as we've noted, been raided by the UN and others on March 18. We'll have more on this.

At UN, Arms Trade Treaty Passes With 22 Abstentions and the 3 No's, Woolcott Tells ICP of Speakers List

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- When the Arms Trade Treaty was blocked on March 28 under the rules of consensus, the headlines read that only three countries were against it: Syria, North Korea and Iran.

But even then, in speeches like Sudan's and Belarus', one could hear abstentions coming.

And Tuesday in the UN General Assembly there were 23 abstentions, including the two most populous countries on Earth, China and India, and the most populous predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia.

Afterward, Inner City Press asked ATT president Peter Woolcott, after thanking him on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, about criticism of his allowing, before a promised ruling, Mexico and others to make an argument against the UN meaning of consensus. 

  He replied that there was a speakers list that he followed. He said he personally does not favor negotiating under the rule of consensus. Other might say: it showed.

 Inner City Press asked Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, who gave a thoughtful answer about "no vetoes," that may resonate in the UN Budget Committee.

   It was announced that Angola did not abstain, but voted Yes (hence, 22 abstentions, still quite populous.)
In speeches before Tuesday's vote, as Syria's Bashar Ja'afari spoke, US Ambassador Susan Rice was walking out. After that, a full hour into the speeches, Qatar's delegation rolled in. They ended up abstaining. Qatar supports rebels in Syria.

Sudan on the other hand said it was abstaining, citing the failure to address the arming of “mutinous” groups, like the SPLM-North and rebels in Darfur.

Russia, which by a point of order Thursday night put an end to the Mexico-launched attempt to redefine consensus, on Tuesday morning zeroed in on what knowledge of genocide might mean, in Article 6.3. Its Ambassador Churkin said Russia would not have broken consensus on March 28, but would now abstain, as did China. It's hard to call this consensus. Watch this site.

As Arms Trade Treaty Failed, New Low by UN Cowardice Association UNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 29 -- While diplomats milled around UN Conference Room 1 waiting to learn how theirlack of consensus on the Arms Trade Treaty would be phrased, what were the leaders of the UN Cowardice Association up to?

  Using their anonymous social media accounts to try to claim a victory for their role in the UN's raid of Inner City Press' office on March 18, at which UNCA president Pamela Falk of CBS took photographs. 

  Then anonymous UNCA leader “Concerned UN Reporter” passed photographs including of Inner City Press' bookshelf to BuzzFeed. This is UNCA: the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Their new anonymous social media accounts are associated with most members of the UNCA Executive Committee: Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, Tim Witcher of Agence France Press, Melissa Kent of CBC, Syliane Zehil of L'Oriente Le Jour, even Barbara Plett of the BBC and others pictured below.

  There's also former Executive Committee member Margaret Besheer of Voice of America, and former former Evelyn Leopold. But absentee president Falk, after screaming on February 22 that she didn't know which of her board members were behind the accounts, has done nothing to find out. Is she resigning?

Ban's UNCA Lunch of the Lost, Feb 7, 2013, credit Evan Schneider, UNPhoto. From left: OSSG's Del Buey; Denis Fitzgerald of Saudi Press Agency; OSSG's Nesirky; Melissa Kent of CBC; Sylviane Zehil of L'Orient le Jour; Tim Witcher of AFP; Ali Barada of An-Nahar; Ban Ki-moon, Kahraman Halicelik of Turkish Radio & TV; Pamela S. Falk of CBS; Lou Charbonneau of Reuters; Bouchra Benyoussef of Maghreb Arab Press; Yasuomi Sawa of Kyodo News; Masood Haider of Dawn; Unknown; Zhenqiu Gu of Xinhua; Stephane Dujarric of UN DPI

  Falk has only issued a legal threat to Inner City Press, from her CBSNews.com e-mail account, not to question why she took photos of the March 18 raid by the UN Department of Public Information.

  DPI is aware of the fake social media accounts and claimed to take them seriously. DPI's Stephane Dujarric is followed by a recently created one. But so what? Watch this site.

At Arms Trade Treaty, Woolcott Accused of Breaking Word Until Russian Point of Order

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- During the Arms Trade Treaty talks which failed on Thursday night, many called president Peter Woolcott fair and an honest broker.

  But according not only to Syria but other countries, it broke down at the end.

  Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari exclusively told Inner City Press that Woolcott had committed that once an objection was made “crystal clear,” he would announced there was no consensus, no adoption.

But after it was clear that Iran was blocking consensus, then North Korea and Syria, Woolcott gave the floor to Mexico and others to argue that the ATT should be adopted nevertheless, “since there is no definition of consensus.”

These arguments continued until Russia made a point of order, that it IS clear what consensus means, and that none existed here.

Then and only then did Woolcott say that he'd always thought it had to be by consensus, and none existed.

Ja'afari told Inner City Press he asked to speak again, and was told that if he did, he would be “last.”

Afterward a number of other countries, including some not opposed to the ATT, said that Woolcott was a tool of the big countries. “He let Mexico speak to try to change the atmosphere in the room... You see he only stopped when a big country like Russia spoke up,” one arms expert told Inner City Press.

Another said, we can't just change the rules. Another said, the US pushed for the ATT to be under the rule of consensus, to be able to block it -- then “pushed Iran to block it.”

Inner City Press asked the head of the US delegation about this; he did not disagree, including saying, it's not a criticism. Alright then. Watch this site.

Update of 9:30 pm - We'd be told there would be a Woolcott stakeout, to get his side. But it's canceled. To be fair we'll make his argument: there was a list of speakers.

Update of 10:26 pm - after a long stand off resulting in the phrase, “there was no consensus and the draft decision was not adopted.” There's laughter, cheering - and a cloud over the UN.

No Consensus on Arms Trade Treaty, Some Try to Re-Define Consensus

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- The Arms Trade Treaty talks were to have concluded this afternoon; chairman Peter Woolcott has scheduled a press stakeout at 6 pm.

But as delegates continued milling around in Conference Room 1, Inner City Press observed the UN Television stakeout being taken apart at 6:10 pm.

By 6:45 pm, Iran, North Korea and Syria had formally objected, blocking consensus. Mexico and some others argued that the ATT could still be adopted -- without a vote -- since there is no definition of consensus.

But Syria cited a definition, from the World Health Organization in 1987. Russia echoed that. Iran went further, saying that those trying to change the rules should “leave the building.”

Iran had earlier spoken up with sample objections; sources told Inner City Press their main issue was the inclusion of a reference to UN Security Council Chapter 7 sanctions, which they are under.

North Korea, too, is under them. So is Sudan, but several sources told Inner City Press Sudan does not want to stand alone, or even, as a source put it “be seen as one of the rogues.”

But there are principles, and the proponents of the ATT if they wanted consensus might have paid more attention to them.

As delegates milled around on the first floor, Inner City Press nearly alone staked out the second floor protocol room NLB-2109. Iran's Permanent Representative came out with his Syrian counter-part Bashar Ja'afari. Soon thereafter, the objections were made, then the attempts to re-define consensus. Only at the UN. Watch this site.

On Arming Syria Rebels, Oxfam Says Not Now, France Urges, Indian Clause in Arms Trade Treaty

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 -- As the Arms Trade Treaty talks continue in the UN's North Lawn, Oxfam came for a second time for a press conference in the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium.

  A week ago Inner City Press asked the Oxfam panel, which included another NGO's representative from South Sudan, about how they viewed the call to arm the Syrian rebels, and how the treaty would have applied to the South Sudan struggle to separate from Sudan.

  The answers were not entirely responsive, implying that the international community could somehow agree in which rebel or liberation groups are legitimate and should be armed.

  On March 25 Inner City Press asked the question again, directly to Oxfam's Anna MacDonald, letting her know that in the interim, Amnesty International had said that currently the Syrian rebels should not be provided arms, under what its Salil Shetty called the “Golden Rule.”

  MacDonald said, “this treaty will not be a blanket blacklist” but rather “case by case.” Generally, she said, “any government considering arms to any group needs to go through proper risk assessment."

  Then she finally answered on Syria, saying “In the current situation it is highly likely that any country going that right now would conclude no, not right now, weapons would not be provided.”

  But France wants to arm the Syrian rebels - and also supports the so-called Indian clause in the most recent ATT draft, which also dropped the “three little words,” named “at a minimum.” So the list of arms covered, for example not including drones, would be just that: the final list. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

UN's Negotiator for Syria Probe and ATT, Angela Kane, Was Under Investigation for UMOJA, Until Quashed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNdisclosed Location, March 23 -- A top UN official now central to the Syria chemical weapons investigation, Angela Kane, was the subject of a corruption probe that got quashed for political reasons, according to a leaked formal complaint exclusively obtained and published by Inner City Press.

  It involved the UN's delayed and over-budget technology upgrade called UMOJA, which Kane oversaw for a time while she was Under Secretary General for Management.

  Now, in a charade of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's “mobility” policy, Kane has stayed in New York but moved laterally to become Under Secretary General in charge of Disarmament.

  Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky this week said that it will not be envoy Lakhdar Brahimi who will negotiate the chemical weapons investigation, but UN Disarmament, headed by Kane.

  So while some chose not to cover internal complaints and corruption in the UN in favor of canned quotes about the hot topic of the day -- once Sudan, now forgotten, then Libya and now Syria -- the two beats come together.

  The UN's Syria investigator was herself under investigation -- until it was quashed.

The memo, which we've putting online here, recounts that the head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services Carman Lapointe at a meeting of Senior Management let it be known that she viewed the UMOJA case, 0303/11, as a “witch hunt” which should be closed.

  On September 17, 2012, according to the memo, Angela Kane was told she was an “implicated staff member” and would be afforded due process -- ironic, since as Inner City Press has found and reported, journalists are afforded no due process by the UN when stealth complaints like those of Voice of America and Reuters are filed against them, and are processed by the UN.

  But two days after notice to Angela Kane, the memo to Ban states, OIOS' director Michael Stefanovic closed the investigation. Then OIOS Assistant Secretary General David Kanja upheld this after a mere two day review of a detailed complaint.

 The head of the UN's “Ethics Office” Joan Dubinsky was informed, according to the memo, which was also cc-ed to Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson and Ban's chief of staff (and personal envoy on the Eastern Congo) Susana Malcorra.

   But what has been done? How much money is wasted and lost, as Ban proceeds with $100 million in budget cuts?

  Monday at the UN Ban will unveil an “UMOJA Countdown Clock.” Countdown to corruption? Watch this site.