UN Budget Committee Fights on Gaza and R2P As Kicks "Human Resources Management" Down the Road Blaming Delay By Absent Guterres, Excluding Press

By Matthew Russell Lee, CJR PFT CEFC Video

UNITED NATIONS, December 22 – When the UN Budget Committee met on Saturday night in a UN that SG Antonio Guterres has banned Inner City Press from for its coverage of the Committee and of Guterres' conflicts of interest, there were fights on Responsibility to Protect, Gaza and kicking Human Resources Management down the road. Tweeted thread here.

  Cuba made its annual amendment to say Responsibility to Protect was never approved by the UN. Austria for the EU responded it was approved in UNSC Resolution 1366 in 2001. Cuba's amendment had 24 yes votes, 68 no, and 48 abstentions including India.

   Israel put forward an amendment to not fund an inquiry into Gaza. It got, voting with it, the US, Liberia, and Australia the country of the Committee's chair Gillian Elizabeth Bird. Twelve abstained.

   Human Resources Management failed, with Egypt for the Group of 77 blaming it on Guterres' Secretariat giving documents too late. Guterres was long gone, refusing to answer to where or how much he is spending. (Inner City Press ran a scoop seeming to require responses by OIOS, even impeachment, here.)
   Egypt mourned again this failure at the end of the Fifth at 8 pm, and wished well incoming G77 chair Palestine. Bring it on - but hold Guterres and his regime of censorship for corruption to account. While UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was refusingthroughout 2018 to begin any UN audit into China Energy Fund Committee, implicated in the UN bribery prosecution US v Patrick Ho, Guterres had a secret.

   Guterres was and it seems still is connected with and compensated by a company which was trying to sell its oil and gas business to China Energy Fund Committee in 2018. Guterres' failure to disclose and refusal to audit was a direct conflict of interest, which he has tried to cover up by roughing up and banning Inner City Press which asked him about it. (See January 2018 press conference here, July 2018 roughing up by Guterres' UN Security here, banning letter via Press Freedom Tracker here.)

   For years Guterres received money as a board member of the Calouste Galbenkian Foundation, which despite its name is the 100% owner of Partex Oil and Gas. Partex has operations in Angola, Abu Dhabi, Brazil, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Oman and Portugal. It was to a Portuguese court that Guterres, while justifying no listing some of his income, disclosed in 2016 that he was paid at least € 2735 per month for his position with the Gulbenkian Foundation.

   But while a now deleted Foundation web page (archived here) stated that Guterres continued with Gulbenkian into 2018, Guterres did not list it on his most recent, and so far lone, UN Public Financial Disclosure, which covered 2016 ("Disclosing financial and other interests for the 2016 reporting year"). 

  So why did Guterres disclose his position with the Club of Madrid, but not with the Gulbenkian Foundation / Partex Oil and Gas? It is worth noting that Guterres' wife Catarina Vaz Pinto has also been connected to Gulbenkian.

   Following the roughing up and banning from the UN of Inner City Press which has covered the CEFC scandal throughout, Guterres' head of Global Communications Alison Smale promised UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression David Kaye, who asked, that the UN would still answer Inner City Press' written questions.

   But as 2018 came to a close Guterres' spokesmen Stephane Dujarric and Farhan Haq left unanswered 36 questions in a row from Inner City Press, including this: “Beyond the 35 questions from Inner City Press you refused to answer this week, this is a request on deadline that you (1) state when SG Guterres left his position on the Gulbenkian Foundation,

(2) state why Gulbenkian was not listed on SG Guterres' public financial disclosure which covered 2016; 

(3) explain how it is not a conflict of interest for SG Guterres to have refused to start an audit of CEFC in the UN, as requested by Inner City Press in January 2018, given CEFC's bid for the oil business of Gulbenkian. 

Also, again, state why under SG Guterres there have been no updates to the UN public financial disclosures since those filed for 2016. Also, again, explain your refusal to answer any of Inner City Press' questions this week despite USG Smale's statements to GAP, me and UNSR David Kaye. On deadline.” 

   The question was also sent to the e-mail addresses of Guterres, his chief of staff Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, his Deputy Amina J. Mohammed, and Smale, who earlier in the week told Inner City Press she would take “under advisement” her 17 August 2018 pretextual withdrawal of Inner City Press decade long UN media accreditation.
  It seems clear that Guterres and his team have engaged in censorship for corruption, to conceal a blatant conflict of interest by Guterres. It has been raised by Inner City Press to the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, and others.  Watch this site.

Back on 5 December 2018 Patrick Ho was found guilty of seven of eight counts of violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and month laundering. (He was only not guilty on money laundering in Chad - where the bribe was not through any US bank but in cash, $2 million in a gift box). The evidence showed that the NGO he ran, China Energy Fund Committee, used its ongoing UN consultative status to pay bribes to Ugandan foreign minister - and Ashe's successor as President of the UN General Assembly -- Sam Kutesa.. He was working with precedessor Vuk Jeremicwhile Jeremic was UN PGA. CEFC even offered weapons, tanks and drones, to Chad's long time president Idriss Deby for oil blocks or a stake in the Chad Cameroon pipeline. (Inner City Press published documents here.)

The night of the verdict I asked UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres what he will do to clean up the UN, where he has left CEFC without any audit, still in consultative status with the UN. On his way from his Mercedes to a glitzy fundraiser including George and Amal Clooney, Guterres refused to answer. The next day when asked by another journalist why Guterres had refused to answer banned Inner City Press' question, his spokesman Stephane Dujarric claimed that the UN has “cooperated” with the prosecution. But the bribery group remains in the UN, unaudited.

Why has the case of US versus Ho, and now the guilty verdicts, garnered relatively so little interest, with the corruption of the UN exposed by it scarcely mentioned all? SG Guterres is hoping it goes away. In terms of corruption, he did not disclose and refuses to answer on the African business links of his son Pedro Guimarães e Melo De Oliveira Guterres. He refuses to answer how much he spends in public funds flying to his home in Lisbon at least sixteen times sofar as SG. 

   So CEFC remains an accredited non governmental organization with the UN's Economic and Social Council, while investigative Inner City Press for which I have been covering the case has been dis-accredited by and ousted from the UN, put on a list of those permanently banned without notice, due process or appeal. On December 7 I was informed I am banned from a “UN Human Rights” event on December 10 to be addressed by Guterres and his human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet. But this reporting will not stop - Guterres' corruption of the UN must be addressed, through oversight or as is discussed elsewhere, impeachment. From the lofty goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Guterres' censorship for corruption is UNacceptable.

  With UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and her Deputy Andrew Gilmour set to speak in the UN on human rights day on December 10, Inner City Press responded to an invitation and was told, "Thank you for registering to attend the Human Rights Day event at the United Nations on Monday 10 December. On Monday, please come to the UN Visitors’ Gate on First Avenue opposite 45th street starting at 2pm, at which time entry passes will be distributed." 

Then, past six p.m. on Friday, December 7 thisfrom Bachelet's and Gilmour's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: "Dear Matthew, We have received notification from UN Security that your name was flagged as "BARRED" on the list we submitted for passes for Monday's event (3pm, ECOSOC Chamber).We will therefore not have a pass for you and are unable to facilitate entry.
Thank you for your interest and best regards,
OHCHR New York Office." Photo of email here.

   Inner City Press immediately wrote back, to the sender and Bachelet and her assistant, to Andrew Gilmour and to the moderator of the event, "Particularly since you are the UN Office of the High Commissioner for *Human Rights,* did you not ask why a journalist who asks the Secretary General and his spokesmen about the killings in Cameroon, Burundi, UN corruption, UN peacekeepers' sexual abuse of civilians, and Sri Lanka, is “BARRED” from attending your human rights event - without any hearing or appeal? I will appreciate your Office's answer to this."  We'll have more on this.

 Bachelet gave a speech on October 15 in the UN's Third Committee, she emphasized a prioritization of social and economic rights and said one of the officials of her office is "on mission in Silicon Valley" in the US. There are questions about this - but Inner City Press which has covered human rights and the UN for more than a decade was for the first time banned from access a High Commissioner's speech. This has been raised repeated to Bachelet since she took office but she has so far done nothing, not even responded. Meanwhile on October 12 Cameroon, from whose Paul Biya Secretary General Antonio Guterres took a golden statue and favors in the Fifth (Budget) Committee and remains silent on the slaughter of Anglophones, was elected to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This system is failing - but if Bachelet cannot even answer on Guterres maintaining a secret banned list including not only Inner City Press but also "political activists" - and anti-corruption campaigners - then the UN of Guterres has hit its newest low. 

ICP Asks IMF About Its Egypt's Program and Human Rights, IMF Ignores like Questions on Guinea Bissau & G77

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 8 -- When the International Monetary Fund held its biweekly briefing on December 8, Inner City Press submitted a number of questions, about Egypt:

"In Egypt, is it the IMF's understanding that none of the first tranche will be used to pay off old loans? Also, any comment on the arrest of Azza Soliman, amid the crackdown on civil society and the media?"

  IMF Spokesman Gerry Rice lumped most of the online questions together - with the exception of Reuters, which he named in order to offer a defense of “Madame Lagarde” - and on Egypt's recent tariff increases said these are NOT part of the IMF's program.

 Rice blamed the tariff increases, rather, on the World Trade Organization. He added that the IMF's staff report and other documents should be released very soon, in the next few days. We'll have more on that.

   Rice did not answer, or even take, these Inner City Press questions:

On Guinea-Bissau, by when does the IMF expect authorities to entirely unwind the bailouts of Banco da Africa Ocidental and Banco da União?

At the UN the Group of 77 and China has said of the IMF that “a new quota formula is needed that further shifts quota shares to developing countries while protecting the quota share of the poorest countries.” Does MD Lagarde agree?

  We'll have more on this - and, we hope, on the World Bank - in the near future.

Back on October 27, Inner City Press asked three questions including:

"On Yemen, what is the IMF's view and monitoring of President Hadi's action to move the Central Bank to Aden, including impact on the humanitarian situation?"

IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice read out the question and then said moving the bank is complicated, that the bank has done a good job. Beyond the Vine video of complete answer here.

After Pope Francis Speaks on Usury in UNGA, Inner City Press Asks New UNPGA Mogens Lykketoft of Debt, "Not Within UN Walls," He Predicts: Really?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 -- After Pope Francis in his General Assembly speech denounced "usury, especially where developing countries are concerned," Inner City Press later on September 25 asked new General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft about the comment and the process in the GA, at least in the last session, on sovereign debt restructuring. Video here.

  Lykketoft said that he didn't think the issue would be dealt with within the UN's walls -- strange, given that resolutions sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia and the Group of 77 and China on just his have passed by substantial majorities. Perhaps Inner City Press will have the opportunity to ask Lykketoft about this again: getting a question in to him is proving less straight forward that it should be, but we remain optimistic. Watch this site.

 The issue of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up at the UN on December 5, 2014 with a resolution on modalities for negotiation sponsored by Bolivia for the Group of 77 and China put to a vote in the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly.

  The US spoke against the resolution and in favor of dealing with it through the International Monetary Fund -- note that the US is blocking IMF reform -- and was one of 16 countries to vote "no."  34 countries abstained and fully 128 countries voted yes.
 
  Afterward Bolovia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti and his counterpart from Argentina Maria Cristina Perceval held a press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room.

  Inner City Press thanked the duo for the Free UN Coalition for Access-- tellingly, the old UN Correspondents Association wasn't there, though the UN Secretariat insists on setting aside question for what's become its UN Censorship Alliance -- and asked about the IMF, and a growing investors in Argentina's debt.

  Llorenti emphasized the greater legitimacy of the UN General Assembly -- one country, one vote -- over the pay to play environment of the IMF. He contrasted the 16 "no" voting countries as a percentage of those in the GA, versus their power in the IMF.

  Perceval joined and expanded in this comments, and declined to comment on the company Inner City Press had asked about, Highland Capital. She said this is not about Argentina's problem but the multilateral process. She said that Argentina took a lead on the issue of the disappeared, though it was too late to help Argentina. 

  While understandable, there's nothing wrong with a particular country's problems being an engine for raising an issue of wider import. This is how things get changed, if they do, says the Free UN Coalition for Access. We'll have more on this.

On October 6 with the dispute between Argentina and hedge or vulture funds more and more discussed, the International Monetary Fund on released a paper and held an embargoed press call on the topic of "Strengthening the Contractual Framework to Address Collective Action Problems in Sovereign Debt Restructuring."

  Inner City Press asked the IMF's Sean Hagan, General Counsel and Director of the IMF's Legal Department, how his "market based" approach relates to the vote take last month in the UN General Assembly and to respond to the critique that the lack of quota reform at the IMF undermines the legitimacy of its approach.

   Hagan said the UNGA's approach is "treaty based," and that

"There was insufficient support in our members to support that approach, there has been in no change in the attitude of our members when we discussed this last year.”

  But in essence the membership of the IMF is the same as the UN General Assembly -- it's just that in the IMF votes are weighed to wealth, measured in the past. The UN is controlled by five permanently veto-wielding Security Council members. At the IMF for now there is one veto: the US.

  Hagan made much of Kazakhstan including some of the IMF supported language in its most recent bond issuance. He mentioned copycat litigation, already pending in Grenada. He said it seems the issue will be discussed at the upcoming IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings in a session involving "civil society organizations." We'll have more on this.

 For now, the IMF on October 6 said "Directors acknowledged that the recent New York court decisions with respect to Argentina may exacerbate collective action problems, although most felt that the extent of their impact on the restructuring process is still unclear. Directors welcomed the recent modification of pari passu clauses in certain sovereign bond issuances to explicitly exclude the obligation to effect ratable payments."

 So beyond the cited Kakastan, how prevalent is this?

 The IMF also on October 6 discussed "the inclusion of an enhanced collective action clause (CAC) that includes a more robust 'aggregation' feature to address collective action problems more effectively."

  Back on September 11, two days after 124 nations in the UN General Assembly voted to start a process on sovereign debt restructuring, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund, "What is the IMF's comment on the “sovereign debt restructuring” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 9? The resolution cites the IMF's work on the issues, in 2003."

  At the IMF's embargoed briefing that day, IMF spokesperson William Murray provided a long answer, including that the IMF is working on a "market based" solution, particularly on debt contractual terms to prevent "hold out" problems. He mentioned, as he had to, Argentina, which has had it own contentious relation with the IMF.

  Clearly, Argentina -- and Bolivia as chair of the Group of 77 -- were aware of these IMF efforts when they pursued the issue in the UN General Assembly. But it's a power game.

When Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman held a press conference at the UN at 5:30 pm on September 9, he was flanked not only by Argentina's ambassador to the UN Maria Cristina Perceval but also the chair of the Group of 77, Sacha Llorenti of Bolivia. 

  They spoke of 11 countries opposing their resolution on sovereign debt and vultures funds, or sovereign debt restructuring, including the United States. Timerman took the high road, saying that Argentina would present a project with the G77 and speak with all opponents. 

  He asked how the UN General Assembly, which he called the most democratic forum, could be involved in so many fields but not this one. Why indeed.

   Back in June, Inner City Press thanked Timerman and his finance minister Axel Kicillof on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, then asked if Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital hold stakes in other G77 members, and if the case shows the need for reform, that countries should have at least the same debt restructuring rights as corporations.

  Kicillof added, states and the people (pueblos) they represented. He said that in the G77 meeting, Peru had spoken. An attentive Inner City Press reader chimed in with a question about Ecuador, which sold bonds just this week.

  But in that case, new language tried to avoid the Argentina decision of the US Supreme Court, just as Belize and Armenia have also done on their debt. Watch this site. 

    

Post 2015 Text Adopted, Without SIDS or Age or Migrants Rights

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 2 -- After multiple postponements and back-room deals, the Post-2015 development agenda was declared "officially adopted" or agreed to at 6:25 pm on Sunday, with the Group of 77 and China asking for a later "technical change" to included Small Island Developing States.

  The US joined consensus while saying it would later raised issues it left unspecified.

  The Permanent Representative of Benin, who early Saturday morning lashed out at the document and process for selling out the Least Developed Countries, now said he liked the document.

  Sudan for the Arab Group joined consensus; as Inner City Press reported on Saturday, the main Sudanese focus was to ensure that criticism of unilateral sanctions remained in the text (it did).

  Bangladesh's Permanent Representative Monem, to his credit, questioned the omission of migrants from Paragraph 19 (see below). Mexico joined in this criticism. Who speaks for age? Why was Secretary General Ban Ki-moon not present, represented by his chief of staff?

Human rights for migrants and by age were dropped from the "final, final" draft Post-2015 development agenda text released at 2 am on Sunday, to be debated or even gaveled and approved at 11 am Sunday.

  Among many most involved in the process there was an outcry, even after the bland logic for the omission emerged: to stick to "previously agreed language." If that's all that's being done, sticking with the past, why do it?

  Inner City Press, which previously covered the omission of debt sustainability language, got replies from various Permanent Representatives including some who watched Shakespeare in the Park -- New York's Central Park -- on Saturday night.  At the same time, #RacingExtinction projected images of vanishing species onto the Empire State Building, including Cecil the Lion. @InnerCityPressPeriscope video here for next 12 hours.

  Some asked, Where is Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General whom one can imagine bragging about the text when he holds a photo op with US President Barack Obama on August 4? He or his spokesman invited only friendly correspondents to cover that "gaggle," at which these questions will almost certainly not be asked.

  Back on July 31 - August 1, already past the deadline for the Post-2015 development agenda text, Kenyan Ambassador to the UN Macharia Kamau kicked off what was support to be the past session, saying it would take a couple of hours.

   South Africa for G77 began, saying for example that debt sustainability should go back in. The Maldives for AOSIS and Belize for CARICOM also spoke for re-inclusion.

   The European Union followed, calling for the deletion of Paragraph 44 saying the International Monetary Fund should “respect the policy space of each country.”

   Benin upset the apple cart, for the Least Developed Countries, saying that the LDCs were being sold out, through-out the UN system. Ambassador Kamau stayed cool, joking “what would I do without you?” There is not enough laughter at the UN.

  Before the session started, Inner City Press spoke with some who stayed to defend Paragraph 29 against unilateral economic measures -- sanctions -- and others opposed (and others for) Paragraph 33 on foreign occupation. Could this deal be reached? Watch this site.
   

On Central African Republic Rapes, African Group & G77 Get Budget Committee Session, Ladsous Questions Raised

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 -- French soldiers in the Central African Republic allegedly sexually abused children, as exposed in a UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report leaked to the French government by longtime OHCHR staffer Anders Kompass. 

  The UN did not, however, give the report to the host country authorities in CAR. And according to UN documents, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous then urged that the whistleblower Kompass be made to resign. (Ladsous curtly denied this to Inner City Press, video here, then again refused to answer questions.)

  Now the UN's Ban Ki-moon administration will have to answer questions, though not through Ladsous who is conveniently out of town, and only behind closed doors. On May 15 Inner City Press learned from multiple sources that the African Group of UN member states have demanded answers from Ban's chief of staff Susana Malcorra (Ban is also out of town), in a closed session of the General Assembly's Fifth (Budget) Committee on May 18.  

  The wider Group of 77 and China joined in the request as well; diplomats of several European and Latin countries Inner City Press spoke with on May 15 say they too have questions, although their countries had not requested the session.

   The question now is, what will Malcorra have to answer? Key among this should be why the (French) head of UN Peacekeeping appears in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling, Paragraph 9, trying to get the whistleblower fired. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did not dispute this, and High Commissioner Zeid has called it "surprising." 

  How will Malcorra explain it? Can she? 

  There is also the troubling question of why the UN -- OHCHR and UNICEF -- did not tell Central African Republic authorities about the alleged rapes.  What does this say about the UN's relationship with and respect for host countries, particularly in Africa? Watch this site.

  On May 8, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Samantha Power about both issues - the UN's failure to tell the CAR authorities, and Ladsous' "surprising" role, as High Commissioner Zeid put it earlier in the day. Video here and embedded below. Then Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, about the contradiction; for the first time, he gave a timeline. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: Iwant to ask you about these alleged rapes in the Central African Republic.  Prince Zeid [Ra’ad al-Hussein] held a press conference today.  Just as an aside, I would have liked to have seen it announced from here on this very topic.  And he said… he was asked directly about what I've been asking you about, the statement in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling that the Under-Secretary-General of Peacekeeping asked the whistle-blower to resign.  And it was said, and this is why I want to ask you, because I know you said you don't agree with it, but this was a statement that was not contested at the time by the respondent.  So, this means that the UN… the people involved saw the claim and didn't have any problem with it.  I'm not saying that that means it's true.  When you say you don't agree with it, is that a personal position or a UN position?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't think I said I didn't agree with it.  I said you're taking it as fact.  It's his position.

Inner City Press:  Which the UN didn't disagree with.

Spokesman:  I'm just saying it's his position.

Inner City Press:  My question on this is, he said he'd like to say more, but would say it to some forthcoming, apparently, investigative commission.  Ambassador [Samantha] Power at the stakeout said the same thing, that all of this needs to be looked at independently.  So, what's the status of that?  Is the Secretariat having any role in that?

Spokesman Dujarric:  There's obviously the OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] inquiry going on into Mr. [Andres] Kompass and into everything related to that.  You know, I think the aim right now is to ensure accountability for the victims of these alleged rapes and horrendous abuse [that] these young children suffered at the hands the soldiers.  That's… that should be everyone's aim.  Obviously, there will come a time I think when we will need to take a look at how this issue was handled, but I will also add that there is obviously an internal investigation through OIOS and looking at Mr. Kompass.  At this point, I don't have anything to add.

Inner City Press:  The other thing… something you said yesterday was about this, there was no harm to the French investigation by not lifting immunity because they were written questions that were answered.  There's an article in Le Monde today that says that, yeah, written answers were provided seven months after the questions were proffered and was provided on 29 April, which just happened to be the date on which the exposé was first published.  I'm wondering… you can read Le Monde.  I can read it to you.  But, that's what they are saying, basically.

Spokesman:  You know, I think that there are different timelines going on here.  The prosecutor in Paris has his own timeline.  What I can tell you is that on 10 October, the Permanent Mission of France of the UN sent a note verbale to the Secretary-General, to the Office of Legal Counsel with a request from the… from a French judicial authority, a vice-prosecutor, confirming they had a hard copy of the report, which obviously had gone from Mr. Kompass, requesting for us to waive the immunity of the investigator, the OHCHR [Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights] investigator, who authored the report and allowed him to be interviewed.

Following consultations internally, which obviously involve the Mission in the Central African Republic, which involved OLA [Office of Legal Affairs], which involved UNICEF, which involved the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, we wrote back, saying that we will fully cooperate, that we are offering to send them a copy of the redacted report.  And again, here, I can't stress enough the importance of shielding the identities of the victims.  I mean, there are a number of countries in Europe, for example, where it is illegal to share the names of rape victims or of minors who have gone under child abuse, so I think that the issue of protecting the names of the witnesses and those who have been abused is primary.

We also told them that the chief investigator was right now serving in a post in Chile and will provide responses in writing to any questions put forward by French investigators.  We stressed that this cooperation was done on a voluntary basis without any prejudice to the issues of privileges and immunity. That was a letter that we wrote to the French authorities on 5 November.  On 6 February of 2015, we received a letter from the French mission transmitting, obviously, documents that had gone from their own judicial authorities, the written questionnaire and which was for the investigator and reiterating the request to lift the investigator's… the investigator's immunity.  That was on 6 February.

On 30 March, we reiterated our full cooperation to the French.  We provided them with a copy of the redacted report.  We transmitted to them the copies of her… the questions and answers, with the answers provided by the investigator.  We confirmed, yet again, that there was no need to lift immunity because this cooperation would be done on a voluntary basis without any prejudice to the investigation… to our immunities.  I think it serves to remind people… you know, the issue of immunity, I think, is one that is not always fully grasped by those that don't cover the UN on a regular basis.  The UN lifts the immunities of its staff members in a number of cases when they need to testify in front of judges, in front of courts.  We do that.  The immunity is not there to stand in the way of justice being served.  At this point, if there's no need to lift the immunity, it's not lifted.  If there is a need to lift the immunity to provide testimony before a judge or a court in a legal proceeding, it is studied.  It is very often done.

So, I think we're looking at different timelines.  I think different bureaucracies have different timelines.  I've given you ours.  The prosecutor clearly has his or her own; I don't know the gender of the prosecutor.  That's where we are.

Inner City Press:  Just one follow-up.  I appreciate that.  This will be the… there's one date you didn't mention there, which is 12 March 2015, in which the whistle-blower was summoned in and told to resign.  He said and was uncontested by High Commissioner of the Office of Human Rights at the request of the Under-Secretary-General of Peacekeeping.  So, my question is, what was the problem… I understand everything about protecting witnesses.  If the information presumably is provided to prosecutors, like there are rules against it, but it's not illegal for one investigative authority to share the information that could bring about a prosecution with that prosecuting authorities; what's the problem with that?

Spokesman:  I think, again, on Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous, I think he spoke to it… he spoke to it at the stakeout.  I've said what I've had to say about Mr. Kompass's allegations.  I think the High Commissioner spoke at length and eloquently this morning, so I have nothing to add.  I think it is vital for the work of the human rights organs of this Organization that, when people give us testimony with the understanding that it will be kept confidential, that it is in fact kept confidential.  I think the High Commissioner said clearly that the investigative responsibility, the criminal investigative responsibility, is in this case with the French soldiers with the French authorities.  It is with national authorities.

The human rights mechanisms in this organization conduct a lot of commissions of inquiry.  We have ones going on on Syria, on the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], to name just two.  People give us testimonies with the understanding that we will be… we will guarantee that this… their names will be kept confidential.  I think that is exactly the issue here, is that when people give us testimony with the understanding that it be kept confidential, we have a responsibility to keep that confidential.  The handling of Mr. Kompass' case administratively, what was said, what was done is being reviewed internally.

  Here is the video of Inner City Press questions to US Ambassador Power:

From the US Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: One issue that has arisen that may not even need to wait for an investigation is that the Central African Republic says that they were never told of this, and given that these were their citizens, I wonder if you—does the U.S. think that when the UN system becomes aware of charges such as these, that the host country should be told? There’s also this issue, in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling, that the Under Secretary General of Peacekeeping was reported, and the UN didn’t seem to dispute it, to have said that the whistleblower should resign or be suspended. And I wonder, this seems like a pretty serious charge. What do you think of that? Do you think that that is appropriate? What do you think of the treatment of the whistleblower who brought it to light?

Ambassador Power: "I think, on a lot of these issues, we’re all going to be better off if we allow an impartial investigation to take hold. And, I think, you raise a really, really important issue about host country involvement, and we’d want to, again, get the facts on that. Certainly, it is the case that the host country itself, of course, has the sovereign responsibility for the protection of its citizens, and so, looking at what role Central African Republic authorities played or didn’t play has to be part of this.

"And then, in terms of the individual who disclosed the allegations, who worked for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, again, it’s extremely important that any individual who comes into possession of allegations of this gravity acts swiftly. It is also extremely important that victim and witness safety be a very significant, a primary consideration as well. And so again, the impartial investigation will look at the handling and how both the issue of speed and the issue of victim and witness protection—how those issues were handled."

  It is an answer that may move things forward. Ladsous, it should be noted, just this week snubbed a Joe Biden-linked Hemispheric peacekeeping conference in Uruguay, wasting an $8,000 first class plane ticket and angering many troop contributing countries. He refuses to answer Press question, for example on rapes in Minova, DRC and Tabit in Darfur.

   As noted, on May 8, High Commissioner Zeid held a press conference, and twice refused to comment on why Ladsous was said to have pressured to fire or suspend the whistleblower.

  Inner City Press has covered Ladsous' role from the beginning, and highlighted his appearance in Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. On May 7, Ladsous told Inner City Press, "I deny that" - then refused to take questions.

 Zeid was asked, and first time said he should first give his view of the pressure to the investigator, not the media.

 The second time, he said he was surprised to read it -- his Office did not contest that part of the ruling, effectively admitting it -- and that the head of UN Peacekeeping should not have been intervening about a non-UN force.  Video here.

 Neither he nor the questioners in the room in Geneva said the obvious: Ladsous is a longtime French diplomat; it is not rocket science to read Paragraph 9 as him (inappropriately) still working for "his" country.

 Zeid said other things we'll report later; he alluded to the need for a Commission of Inquiry. Some ask, will Ladsous quit before then? Or after?

 For more than nine months, no action was taken -- no interviews of victims or alleged perpetrators were done -- other than the UN suspending Kompass for the leak, on which the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling recites that UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous requested Kompass' resignation. (See Paragraph 9, here.) Ladsous told Inner City Press he denies it - then refused questions.

  Early on May 8, UN system staff complained to Inner City Press that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan, in a closed staff meeting on May 8, tried to downplay the scandal, going so far as to blame imams in Bangui for not playing their role.

  But it was OHCHR which didn't even give the report of the rape of CAR children to CAR authorities, only to the French.

  In places, Zeid appeared to try to use his record ten years ago on sexual abuse to shift the blame to imams.  Inner City Press has shown a failure by his Office to act on past leaking, to Morocco. We'll have more on this.

  On May 7, Inner City Press asked more questions about this - including to Herve Ladsous himself.

  After a long closed-door consultation meeting of the Security Council, Ladsous emerged. Inner City Press asked him, based on Paragraph 9 of the UNDT ruling, Why did you ask Kompass to resign?"

  Ladsous stopped and said, "I deny that." Inner City Press put the handheld video online, here.

   

Fish in High Seas Subject of Friday Night Fight at UN, Consensus Reached

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 24 -- After late Friday night negotiations, consensus was reached to begin negotiating the first UN treaty to conserve marine biological diversity in ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction. The document will be published and voted on in the UN General Assembly.

   But how did it come about, at the end?

   On the morning of Friday, January 23 things did not look good. The larger group took over Conference Room 5 in the UN basement, with a hundred-some seat; the Group of 77 repaired to smaller Conference Room 8. (The Security Council was in a closed meeting in Room 7 about human rights and peacekeeping; some UN-based reporters werelured into a meeting feigning a fight for access,  leadership engaged in censorship).

   Inner City Press spoke with different sides of the oceans debate, some expressing frustration not only at big power but also seafaring (and fishing) countries like Iceland and Argentina. It came down to a showdown in Conference Room 5, while upstairs in the Delegates Lounge new contractor Culinart served up drinks.

   Surprising to many of those involved, longtime Sri Lanka ambassador Palitha Kohona was in the mix, even after the defeat of “his” president Mahinda Rajapaksa and investigation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa for media murder. Kohona was head of the UN's Treaty Division, so there's that. Jamaica's Deputy Permanent Representative was in the house, and South Africa now speaking for the Group of 77, having taken over from Bolivia.

   First the rub was Paragraph 7; then it shifted back to Paragraph 6 bis, about not undermining the Law of the Sea and other related instruments. Versions was projected on the wall; the phrase “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” was deployed.  And finally, though less than advocate wanted, this agreement to negotiated was reached. And so it goes at the UN.

   

UN Budget Fight Past Overtime, Ban Ki-moon's Same Sex Marriage Under Fire, OIC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 24 -- In the run up to this afternoon's budget showdown at the UN, diplomats worked until six in the morning, on issues ranging from the 2016 budget to the first performance report.

  At 3 pm on December 24, however, the outgoing head of the Group of 77, Bolivia's Sacha Llorenti, told G77 representatives that the other side said no more talks today.

  In the halllway outside Conference Room 1 where G77 was meeting, Inner City Press interview a range of diplomats and UN Secretariat officials about another issue -- rebellion by some member states at Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's policy position -- or "executive order," as one delegate called it -- on same sex marriage. 

  "Between the OIC and African countries, it's going down," one Permanent Representative told Inner City Press. The other side says that Ban has the power to "just do it." But, even the person making this argument conceded,  Ban is no Obama.

  And, another asked, where IS Ban Ki-moon, as his policy is "going down" in the Fifth Committee?

  A delegate from Uruguay last week urged the rest of the Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly to do everything possible to come to a conclusion before midday on December 24. So much for that.

On December 23 when Inner City Press checked in again with the sprawled out Fifth Committee in the UN's first sub-basement, along with pizza boxes and coffee containers with spouts were an array of still-open items.

In this session the Fifth Committee is considering, for example, the proposed program budget outline for the biennium 2016-17. On this, amid threats of cut-backs, the Group of 77 and China put a resolution into an “L document” on December 23, leading to protests from diplomats from Italy, Japan and the US.

Diplomats stayed until 6 am on December 24, and returned for a G77 meeting at 11 am, moved due to its size from Conference Room 9 to CR 1. Bolivia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti, soon to turn over the G77 gavel to South Africa, reported back to G77 Ambassador where things stood.

For now, the Fifth Committee “plenary” is not set until 3 pm, with the full General Assembly with no time set at all.

Other items include the Capital Master Plan, the Extraordinary Chambers court in Cambodia, revised estimates for the Ebola mission UNMEER and for theHuman Rights Council (regarding cut-backs at which, see this Inner City Press story) and UNHQ long term accommodation needs, otherwise known as building on a current New York City playground.

Another item concerns the UN's UMOJA system, with cost overruns and corruption scandals. One former UMOJA official, Paul van Essche who was caught up in a scandal -- "PHP irregularities," Inner City Press exclusive coverage here -- now announces he'll resurface as UNICEF's chief of information technology in January 2015. We'll have more on this.