Inner City Press: Ethics Office

Showing posts with label Ethics Office. Show all posts

Monday, August 11, 2014

Two Masters: UN Tells Inner City Press That Ray Chambers Can Serve Ban Ki-moon and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie - But Was UN Ethics Office Told? When?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- The UN Charter is clear: a person cannot serve both the UN and their own government. But does that also mean “local government”? Or, as the UN today told Inner City Press, it is fine to serve both Ban Ki-moon and Chris Christie?

At the August 11 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: on Ray Chambers. He was recently named to a panel by Chris Christie of New Jersey and the article reporting that said that he’s a former UN official. But, the website says that he’s the current, you know, adviser to the Secretary-General on…

Spokesman Dujarric: I’m not aware of any changes to Mr. Chambers.

Inner City Press: Can he do both? Can he serve the State of New Jersey and the UN at the same time?

Spokesman Dujarric: Let me check what his exact status is.

Five hours later, Dujarric has still not answered. So Inner City Press asked (on this) in writing:

On Ray Chambers and his new New Jersey post, here is a citation[calling Chambers a "former" UN official - misleading?]

Again: can he do both, UN and NJ? Any ethics office ruling?

And any answer on the UNDP audit I sent you?

Finally: does SG's “press availability” at noon tomorrow mean no noon briefing? Is so, why? As you know, there are questions about the full range of the UN system and missions. Please explain.

Dujarric said, no UN noon briefing on August 12 -- the Free UN Coalition for Access objects -- and on Chambers, he then replied:

“On Ray Chambers, he remains the UN SG’s Special Envoy for Financing the Health Millennium Development Goals and for Malaria. His post is on a $1 a year. We see no conflict with his serving on New Jersey-focused commission.”

Is that consistent with the UN charter? And why not answer on if the UN Ethics Office was asked? Recently Dujarric's office refused to say if the UN Ethics Office was asked about Ban accepting free private jet travel to the Middle East paid for by Qatar, with its own interests in the region.

In the past, Ban's spokesperson's office dodged Inner City Press questions about then UN envoy on the Sahel Romano Prodi simultaneously running for office in Italy (more recently he called Egypt's Sisi about Libya and was identified, still, as a UN official).

But can Chambers serve Ban Ki-moon and Chris Christie at the same time?

Ban's previous “good offices” envoy on Cyprus Alexander Downer was vying for political roles and then Australian Ambassadorship(s) while serving the UN, and working for consultancy Bespoke Approach. Now Inner City Press is told the UN is being lobbied to name as Downer's successor a former UN (and US) official, B. Lynn Pascoe. We'll have more on this.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Ethics Questions As Ban Ki-moon Continues Flying on Qatar-Funded, UK Registered Plane

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow up on exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 22, more here -- Does the UN abide by its own stated ethics rules?

On July 21, the UN belatedly answered Inner City Press that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted a free Qatar-funded, British registered private jet for his current travel about Gaza. Video here and embedded below.

Inner City Press, and now the Free UN Coalition for Access, have been pursuing this question, including now with Transparency International which answered "it would seem that the Secretary General would have had to have been previous clearance to undertake such a paid trip by the Qatari government. This question should be posed to the Office of Ethics."

And so on July 22, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if the UN Ethics Office was asked about accepting the free Qatar-funded private jet flights.

Haq replied:

“I'm aware that as a standard policy, we inform the Ethics Office of all such offers...I don't know about this particular case. I know it for past cases, every time I have asked the Ethics Office about this, they have talked about being informed about this... They do approve these on the case of exceptional circumstances.”

Inner City Press asked Haq to get an answer from the Ethics Office, if they were asked before Ban began his current trip in the Qatar-funded jet.

Haq said, “I can do this... This is what has happened several times in the past.” We'll stay on this.

Should the UN Secretary General in a mediation attempt accept free travel from a country with a particular interest in the conflict to be mediated?

What review should take place? What disclosures should be made, and when? From the UN's July 21 transcript, video here from Minute 31:

Inner City Press: you are saying that the use of private planes, generically if necessary, is signed off by the ethics office, but my question is, private planes provided by anyone? Would the Secretary-General, would he accept such service from any Member State, or would he accept it from corporations? The question becomes, given that particular countries have different views of the conflict, what review is made before accepting a particular country’s contribution?

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq: Well, we do have, like I said, an ethics office and a legal office that can look into these things and see whether something is appropriate or not.

Inner City Press: Was this particular flight checked or you’re saying there’s a generic ruling in advance that any private plane is okay?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: No, I don’t think there’s a generic ruling about this, but certainly, if you need to justify this for essential needs, and something like this, a trip that the Secretary-General was able to embark on and made the decision on just at the end of last week and then had to travel, starting Saturday evening, something like that would have been extremely hard or basically impossible to do in a different sort of way.

Inner City Press: I’m asking because in the budget Committee, often many, particularly developing world countries, they say that things should be funded out of the UN’s general budget rather than taking voluntary contributions from States that then have influence. So, my question is, isn’t there a travel budget? We’ve asked in this room many times to know what the budget is, so I’d still like to know that. But, if there is a budget, why wasn’t the general UN budget used for this rather than taking a specific gift from a specific country? That’s the question.

Deputy Spokesman Haq: The worry is, of course, if you run out of money early, does that mean you can’t travel, even if there’s a crisis? In this case, there was a crisis that necessitated sudden travel.

Inner City Press broke the story on July 19 -- credit has been given, for example, by Newsweek, here -- and has been asking Ban's spokespeople for disclosure and what safeguards are in place.

Lead spokesman Dujarric replied but did not answer on July 19. When he called in to the UN noon briefing from Cairo on July 21, Inner City Press asked him again on whose plane Ban is traveling.

This time, Dujarric answered that Ban is flying on a Qatar government funded, UK registered plane. But he did not answer if there are any safeguards against influence or conflicts of interest. Would Ban accept free flights from any UN member state? From anyone at all?

Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said the the UN Ethics Office said taking private planes is okay when necessary.

But private planes from ANYONE? Any member state? A corporation? There have been no real answers, yet. But there need to be.

Diplomats told Inner City Press that Ban would fly -- on a Qatari plane -- to Qatar, Ramallah (but not for now Gaza), Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

The diplomats who complained to Inner City Press questioned not only Ban taking free flights from a particular country, but also how the use (and landing) of a Qatari plane will play in, for example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokespeople, and the spokesperson listed as on weekend duty, the following:

"Please state whether the Secretary General is accepting free transportation from any member state or outside party for his current trip to the region concerning the Gaza crisis, and if so please explain the reason and any safeguards in place against influence or conflict of interest.

"Such disclosure should be common practice; if necessary, note that former Spokesperson Nesirky did answer such Press questions, for example concerning the Secretary General flying on a UAE plane (see sample below). On deadline, thank you in advance.

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Subject: Your questions
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

- The UAE Government provided an aircraft to fly the Secretary-General from Beirut to Abu Dhabi because of time constraints.

Later on July 19, the following was received, which we publish in full 25 minutes after receipt:

From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Press question if SG is accepting free travel from any member state or outside party, as was disclosed in 2012, on deadline, thanks
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress [dot] com
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

Dear Matthew, Thanks for your question and thanks for the draft answer. The logistical details of the SG's trip, including the travel arrangements are still being worked out. Once we are in a position to confirm them, i will revert.

best

Stephane Dujarric (Mr.)
Spokesman for the Secretary-General

But obviously the "logistical details" of getting to Qatar were worked out - Ban had already been to Qatar, then Kuwait before Cairo.

One asked, what can you solve if you can't even say how you got there?

Inner City Press thanked Dujarric and his colleagues for the interim response and asked, "both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Poroshenko's office say they have spoken with the Secretary General and give read-outs. Will a UN read-out be put out? If so, when? If not, why not?"

On July 21, Inner City Press asked Haq, who confirmed the calls took place but nothing about the contents. What is happened with the UN? TheFree UN Coalition for Access is pressing for reforms. We'll have more on this.

Monday, July 21, 2014

In UNreformed UN, Ban Ki-moon Flying on Qatar-Funded, UK Registered Plane, Inner City Press First Reported, FUNCA Asks: No Rules?

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow up on exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 21, more here -- Should the UN Secretary General in a mediation attempt accept free travel from a country with a particular interest in the conflict to be mediated?

What review should take place? What disclosures should be made, and when? These questions are raised by Ban Ki-moon's now acknowledged accepting for his entire Gaza-related tour of a Qatar funded, UK registered plane.

Inner City Press broke the story on July 19, and has been asking Ban's spokespeople for disclosure and what safeguards are in place.

Lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric replied but did not answer on July 19. When he called in to the UN noon briefing from Cairo on July 21, Inner City Press asked him again on whose plane Ban is traveling.

Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said the the UN Ethics Office said taking private planes is okay when necessary.

But private planes from ANYONE? Any member state? A corporation? There have been no real answers, yet. But there need to be.

Diplomats told Inner City Press that Ban would fly -- on a Qatari plane -- to Qatar, Ramallah (but not for now Gaza), Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokespeople, and the spokesperson listed as on weekend duty, the following:

Later on July 19, the following was received, which we publish in full 25 minutes after receipt:

best

Stephane Dujarric (Mr.)
Spokesman for the Secretary-General

But obviously the "logistical details" of getting to Qatar were worked out - Ban has already been to Qatar, then Kuwait before Cairo.

One asked, what can you solve if you can't even say how you got there?

Inner City Press hanked Dujarric and his colleagues for the interim response and asked, "both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Poroshenko's office say they have spoken with the Secretary General and give read-outs. Will a UN read-out be put out? If so, when? If not, why not?"

On July 21, Inner City Press asked Haq, who confirmed the calls took place but nothing about the contents. What is happened with the UN? The Free UN Coalition for Access is pressing for reforms.

On July 18 after the Gaza meeting of the UN Security Council, the Press was sent "the revised draft resolution that will be put before the Members of the Security Council by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in its capacity as the Arab representative on the Security Council."

Inner City Press put the document online, here, explicitlycomparing it to Resolution 1860 (2009), which passed because the US abstained but did not veto, as it would later do on settlements. We will stay on this.

Meanwhile the French government banned a demonstration planned for July 19 about the situation of Palestinians in Gaza.

Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN's position. Haq said "our general point of view on this is that people have a right to peaceful protest.... We'd have to see how this proceeds, you're talking about something to happen in the future."

But the ban was already in place.

While the French government predicted that Saturday's demonstration would be violent, that's akin to prior restraint or profiling. There are have peaceful protests about Palestine in France, for example on July 16.

But from Niger -- appropriately -- Francois Hollande said “we cannot allow the conflict to be imported into France."

Is Ban's UN criticizing France? Is a man biting a chien? Whether a formal statement comes out may be the test.

So how is a statement of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon produced? The question was raised by those, both in the real / outside world and even inside the UN who were surprised by this Ban statement of July 13:

“The Secretary-General, abhorring the images of Israeli families hovering in shelters in fear for their children's safety, repeats his condemnation of Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza and demands an immediate cessation of these indecent attacks. The Secretary-General is also deeply worried about the impact on Palestinian families of Israeli military action.”

Several UN officials expressed surprise or even "disgust... at putting Israel first despite no deaths versus 180 in Palestine, abhorring the first but only 'deeply worried' about Gazans."

And so based on complaints and reporting, Inner City Press can say that such statements are said to originate with a desk officer in UN Department of Political Affairs, run by former US diplomat Jeffrey Feltman.

Then they are reviewed, on the Middle East, by Antonella Caruso, then Feltman, then in Ban's office one Andrew Gilmour. That's how this statement was issued, Inner City Press is informed.

Inside the Security Council on July 10, Israel's Ron Prosor told BanKi-moon that while he had given his speech, five rockets had been fired at Israel (Prosor played a rocket warning siren on his phone, to make his point.) At the stakeout, on-camera, Prosor raised the number of rockets to six.

While Palestine's Riyad Mansour spoke on camera, the stakeout was nearly full with journalists. But when Prosor spoke there were far fewer -- one of whom told Inner City Press, “This is a question for FUNCA,” the Free UN Coalition for Access. Again Prosor played the rocket siren warning, and used the line “From Abuja to Falluja.”

Inner City Press asked Prosor about those who say Hamas is not formally part of the unity government; he replied, “Hamas is Hamas.”

On Palestine joining or complaining to the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press' question which Ban Ki-moon dodged on July 9, Prosor did not answer. Yet.

Watch this site.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

At UN, Whistleblowing in the Wind as Ethics Office Fails 99% of Complainants, Raid Redux

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 9 -- Even when the whistle is blown in the UN's lack of effective protection for whistleblowers, the UN's response is first to refuse to comment, then to churn out statistics that experts in the field view as misleading.

On April 8, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey:

Inner City Press: There was a press conference earlier today across the street by the UNMIK [United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo] whistleblower, Mr. [James] Wasserstrom, and he is calling on the US to implement a law which would cut 15 per cent of the funding by the US to the UN for failure to protect whistleblowers. And one of the questions that arose that I would specifically want to get your response to is whether in the whole course of his case, which has been pretty widely reported, the Secretary-General or his team has ever sought to meet with GAP [Government Accountability Project] or with Mr. Wasserstrom in terms of trying to reform what seems to be a broken whistleblower protection system? I was told by GAP that the Secretary-General has never responded even to letters from them. So how can that be?

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, Matthew, the only thing I can say is the matter is under consideration for appeal to the UN Appeals Tribunal, and of course, we cannot comment on it until the litigation is over.

Inner City Press: He was complaining this morning that, despite what he called retaliation, what was found to be retaliation, he was awarded $65,000, which doesn’t even cover his costs; he says other whistleblowers won’t come forward. Is the Secretary-General trying to reduce that further or does he also feel that his award means that whistleblowers essentially will just stay quiet?

Deputy Spokesperson: Matthew, as I said, that the issue is under litigation, I cannot comment on it.

  The next day, April 9, Inner City Press asked Del Buey a more generic question: how many claims of retaliation has the UN Ethics Office process, and many has it verified or “established”?

  Later on April 9, the UN sent Inner City Press the following statistics:

Subject: Your questions on complaints presented to the Ethics Office
Date: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress [dot] com

In response to your question at the noon briefing, we can say that from August 2006 to July 2012, the Ethics Office initiated 106 formal retaliation complaint preliminary reviews. Of those 106 cases, 1 remained under review and 18 were closed as a result either of the complainant having withdrawn or abandoned his or her complaint or of the case having been resolved informally to the satisfaction of the complainant. For the remaining 87 complaints, the Office determined that 9 had presented prima facie cases of retaliation and referred those cases for formal investigation. Investigations were completed for five of the cases, after which the Office determined that retaliation had been established for one of them. Four cases are still pending completion of the investigation.

  Even though, or perhaps because, Ban Ki-moon has not responded to their inquiries, the Government Accountability Project are among the experts in this field. So Inner City Press asked GAP's Shelley Walden about the UN's response. Here is GAP's reply:

“This information appeared in the UN Secretariat Ethics Office’s 2012 report (see A/67/306, para. 47). The Ethics Office says it initiated 106 formal retaliation complaint preliminary reviews, but if you add up all of the protection against retaliation inquiries mentioned in the Ethics Office’s reports from 2006-2012, the number comes to 343...

“The Ethics Office says that it completed a preliminary review in 87 cases and ultimately determined that retaliation was established in one case. But whether you use the 87 number, 106 number or 343 number, the UN Ethics Office has still failed to protect 99% of UN staff members who have requested protection against retaliation.

“The reason that we tend to use the 343 number is because we don’t know how many of these people had valid retaliation complaints that the Ethics Office failed to review, due to lack of jurisdiction or for other reasons. We know, for example, that the Ethics Office will not review retaliation complaints from UN police officers as they have concluded that they are not protected by the UN whistleblower protection policy when they report misconduct. So those kinds of cases are reflected in the 343 number but are most likely not reflected in the 106 number. To be fair, the Ethics Office has informed us that some of the 343 cases were not whistleblower cases (i.e. claims in which the staff member was not a whistleblower and merely wanted to contest a performance review). They also include cases in which someone requested advice regarding the protection against retaliation policy, but did not submit a complaint.”

  Still. And what about the UN's now clear retaliation against the Press, going as far as a non-consensus March 18 raid of its office, and March 21 leaking to BuzzFeed of photographs of its desk and bookshelf? We'll have more on this -- on the retaliation front too, we hope. Watch this site.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

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.

Monday, February 11, 2013

At UN, Leaked Memo to Ban Ki-moon Complains of Cover Up of Probe of UMOJA, Kane, Pervasive Favoritism

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 11 – Alongside Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's $100 million budget cut, of which he says 70% should be from personnel costs or workers' salaries, questions are mounting about cost overruns, waste and fraud in the UN's systems upgrade or “UMOJA” project.

On December 14, 2012 Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's three top spokespeople to “please confirm or deny that the director of OIOS stopped an investigation of UMOJA, including of the role of the former Under Secretary General for Management, and on what basis.”

In two months, the UN has not answered this or another related question.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Spokesperson of the Secretary General has told Inner City Press it will not confirm or deny documents Inner City Press obtains from whistleblowers or, as OSSG calls them, “leaks.”

Inner City Press has obtained a memo that was sent to Ban Ki-moon alleging a cover up in the investigation of UMOJA and that “former Under Secretary General for Management” (now USG for Disarmament) Angela Kane.

The memo, which we are 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.

But what has been done? How much money is wasted and lost, as Ban proceeds with $100 million in budget cuts? Where is the claimed accountability framework -- just another buzzword?

Also on December 14, 2012, Inner City Press asked Ban's three top spokespeople another UMOJA question, about procurement: “What is the contractual status of Joan McDonald, retiree now acting as procurement official for UMOJA? How was she recruited, and how does this comport with the Secretary General's stated reforms on recruitment?”

This is another question that has not been answered in two months.

Ban's UN appears shot-thought with favoritism, as we reported last week as well, and also based on an answer that WAS provided, albeit on New Years Eve. The UN should improve, and these are test cases. Watch this site.

Inner City Press