At UN, UNknown If US Has LGBT Issues in Fighter Training, Censors' Club After

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 24 -- Why do some events or speakers inside the UN building get shunted off into closed meetings and then a private club, not filmed or webcast by UN Television, while others are in public?

  On the morning of August 24, Inner City Press went to cover the UN Security Council Arria formula meeting about LGBT victims of ISIS' attacks in Syria and Iraq, but found a sign outside UN Conference Room 3 that the meeting was "Closed." Photo tweeted by @InnerCityPress here.

  Even as a speech inside by the UN Deputy Secretary General was promoted, there was no copy of his remarks in the UN Spokesperson's Office, just a slew of Ban Ki-moon remarks in Nigeria (Ban's speech to 150 bankers was entirely withheld.)

  US Ambassador Samantha Power spoke briefly on her way in, and it was said that more would be said after.

  And lo and behold, a UNTV stakeout was set up for US Power in the hall outside Conference Room 3. Inner City Press was there and filmed its setting-up; it wanted to ask if the US makes this issues a part of its own training of fighters in Syria and Iraq.

  Here is Periscope video of US Power's stakeout, here.

  But this question wasn't taken or allowed. The which last time gave Power questions to Reuters, France 24 and Voice of America, this time picked... France 24, Reuters and AP. While it did not call on its VOA, another crew with USUN passes filmed the stakeout itself. 

  At the end, as more was asked for, it was said that Power's co-speaker would speak and take questions at 2 pm.

  But on this late August Monday, a day when the UN Press Briefing Room with its UNTV webcasting facilities, open to all UN accredited journalists, is entirely open and available, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and an advocate from Syria, Subhi Nahas, are being shunted off into the non-televised private club of the "UN Correspondents Association," UNCA, now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, publicized only to those who pay UNCA money? 

  More troublingly, UNCA and its board members have tried to get the investigative Press, which along with the new Free UN Coalition for Access, has covered IGLHRC's successful passage through the UN's NGO Committee, here , thrown out of the UN.  Is this the right venue, including on the criteria of trying to make the information widely available?

 (Inner City Press likewise covered the process of theInternational Lesbian and Gay Association and theAustralian Lesbian Medical Association, among others likeFreedom Now, of which it asked the ECOSOC President -- in the UN Press Briefing Room, here.

  If any member state asked for the UN Press Briefing Room, IGLHRC's Jessica Stern and Subhi Nahas ofOrganization for Refuge, Asylum and Migration (ORAM) could hold their press conference open to all, webcast to the world. Was no country willing to do it? Surely the US would be willing. Or if not, the UK, or Lithuania, or Chile, or New Zealand, or another. So why not?

 Did UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance, not explain this? We may have more on this. Watch this site.

   

At UN, After Arria UN Censorship Alliance To Put LGBT Advocates Behind Closed Doors, UNtelevised: Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 21 -- Why do some events or speakers inside the UN building get shunted off into a private club, not filmed or webcast by UN Television, while others are in public?

  On August 24, a day when the UN Press Briefing Room with its UNTV webcasting facilities, open to all UN accredited journalists, is entirely open and available, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and an advocate from Syria, Subhi Nahas, are being shunted off into the non-televised private club of the "UN Correspondents Association," UNCA, now known as theUN's Censorship Alliance, publicized only to those who pay UNCA money? 

  More troublingly, UNCA and its board members have tried to get the investigative Press, which along with the new Free UN Coalition for Access, has covered IGLHRC's successful passage through the UN's NGO Committee, here , thrown out of the UN.  Is this the right venue, including on the criteria of trying to make the information widely available?

 (Inner City Press likewise covered the process of the International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Australian Lesbian Medical Association, among others like Freedom Now, of which it asked the ECOSOC President -- in the UN Press Briefing Room, here.

  If any member state asked for the UN Press Briefing Room, IGLHRC's Jessica Stern and Subhi Nahas of Organization for Refuge, Asylum and Migration (ORAM) could hold their press conference open to all, webcast to the world. Was no country willing to do it? Surely the US would be willling. So why not?

 Did UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance, not explain this? We may have more on this. Watch this site.

   

At UN, Bid to Overturn Same Sex Benefits Fails, 43-80-37, Saudi Arabia Says UNacceptable

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 24 -- A proposal to overturn UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's decision to extend benefits to same-sex partners of UN staff was voted down on March 24, with 43 nations in favor, 80 against and 37 abstaining.

  Before the vote in the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee, Saudi Arabia said that such relationships are "morally unacceptable."

  This is the same Saudi Arabia so much praised recently, on the passing of its King and even this week for a its role in Yemen. Some coverage in the run-up to the vote didn't even mention US ally Saudi Arabia.

  There was talk of respecting cultural norms, and from US, EU and others, emphasis that internal UN rules don't impact the domestic legislation of states.

 The chairman of the committee, before giving the floor to Germany, offered condolences for the plane crash earlier in the morning in the French Alps. Then the clashing speeches continued.

  Inner City Press covered the issue back in December 2014, when at the last minute a vote was put off. 

In the run up to the December 24, 2014 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. Later in the day it was rolled-over to the next week, and now Inner City Press is first to report some of the results.

  Beyond the money (see below), the contentious issue of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's same sex marriage benefits, on which the Organization for Islamic Cooperation and others were prepared to vote no, has been pushed over into the next session. One African Permanent Representative, not in the OIC, told Inner City Press Ban should "just withdraw" his policy. Ban is on annual leave.

  On Yom Kippur, Diwali and other religions' holidays becoming official UN system holidays, sources tell Inner City Press that language has been arrived at that allows these holidays to be celebrated without requiring it.

  The Partnerships facilities, which many delegates linked to former UN official Robert Orr, ran into opposition from those who say its modalities and "programmatic" elements must be further negotiated. The return of some $150 million by the Capital Master Plan is still being pushed for; G77 says it "held the line on re-costing."

  In the hallway outside Conference Rooms 5, 1 and 3, Inner City Press interviewed a range of diplomats and UN Secretariat officials about the  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 had 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? On December 29 the answer was: on annual leave.

  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. That didn't happen.  Now will it be done on December 29?

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.

   

Amid UN Culture War, Inner City Press Asks Ban Ki-moon of LGBT Benefits, He Calls It Human Right

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- In the budget committee showdown at the UN in late December, an issue that was almost voted on and then was deferred at least until March was  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's policy position -- or "executive order," as one delegate called it -- on same sex marriage. 

  This was Ban's administrative action to pay benefits for LGBT families.

  "Between the OIC and African countries, it's going down," one Permanent Representative told Inner City Press.  But ultimately it got put off, at least until March.

  Ban Ki-moon in a speech to the UN General Assembly on January 8 said "I must express my deep concern that the General Assembly was unable to agree on many important management issues in December. I trust that you will resolve your differences and review your working methods when your discussions resume in March."

After the speech, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon,video here:

Inner City Press: in your speech you said you were dissatisfied with the General Assembly not acting on management issues. I wanted to know if that means LBGT or same sex benefits for UN staff, and what would you have the Assembly do? 

SG Ban: on LGBT, I have made my position clear. This is an issue of human dignity and there should be no discrimination whatsoever for any staff, any people, on the basis of sexual orientation or religion or belief. So this is the fundamental principle of human rights, and that is why, on the basis of that I have taken some administrative measures to allow the same and equal treatment for the staff who are having that sexual orientation. This is, I think, the proper thing to do. 

  But what will the General Assembly do in March? What lobbying is taking place behind the scenes? We'll stay on this.

Other items in the late December crunch included the Capital Master Plan, the Extraordinary Chambers court in Cambodia, revised estimates for the Ebola mission UNMEER and for the Human 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.

   

Bachelet Will Leave UN, Return to Chile for Reason Personal - Political?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 15 -- Michele Bachelet announced she will leave the UN and return to Chile for “personal reasons,” widely viewed as political reasons. 

The announcement came past 8 pm on Friday, after the adoption of a compromise outcome document at the Commission on the Status of Women. 

Libya spoke against the gay rights language, the US said it wasn't strong enough. But then Bachelet dropped her news. And Inner City Press tweeted it.

Bachelet has headed UN Women. She had been viewed, without much basis given the UN's sytem of regional rotation and near automatic two terms for Secretaries General, as a possible replacement for Ban Ki-moon.

She was higher profile that Ban's other officials, which include as chief of UN Peacekeeping a French former spokesman, Herve Ladsous, who was rejected by Ban's predecessor for the same post that Ban let him have. France dumped Ladsous on the UN as a last minute replacement for Jerome Bonnafont, without even an interview.

By contrast Bachelet was a former (and perhaps future) head of state. Inner City Press spoke with her not infrequently; she quickly developed knowledge of the UN system including the unions. 

In this she can be contrasted with Ban Ki-moon, who answered Inner City Press' question about opposition to him budget cuts and mobility proposal by called opponents “selfish” then standing behind it. This extends to departments under Ban, interfacing with or casting a pall over the freedom of the press. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

With Obama Proud of UN Gay Amendment, 10 Who Did Not Vote include Uzbekistan, Turkey & Gabon, "Strong-Armed"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 22 -- After the sexual orientation amendment to UN General Assembly's resolution against extrajudicial executions passed on December 21, US President Barack Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs issued a statement that “President Obama applauds those countries that supported” the amendment.

Ambassador Susan Rice tweeted that the US had gone “all in” to win passage of the amendment, with 93 for, 55 against and 27 abstentions -- that is, 175 votes casts of the UN's 192 member states.

Little noticed were the ten countries which did not vote at all of the LGBT amendment, but were present and voting minutes later on the overall resolution on extrajudicial executions, on which 185 votes were cast.

Late Tuesday, sources told Inner City Press this was reflexive of “arm twisting” or advocacy by the US over the weekend. “They conveniently walked out of the room,” as one source put it, appearing satisfied.

The countries which were conveniently absent on the LGBT vote included Central Asia countries with dubious human rights records: Uzbekistan, which former UK Ambassador Craig Murray accused of boiling to death the opponents of Islam Karimov; Kyrgyzstan with its recent ethnic cleansing and support from the US, and Turkmenistan, where Turkmenbashi's former dentist rules the roost.

Also out of the room or not voting on the LGBT text, but suddenly back for the executions resolution were the African nations of Gabon, Cameroon and Madagascar.

More tellingly, when Inner City Press on Wednesday morning in front of the Security Council asked one of the absent country's Ambassador about his country's sudden absence for the LGBT amendment, he acknowledged without hesitation or equivocation the pressure from the United States.

As one example among those countries which did vote, advocates pointed at the abstention, rather than "no" vote, of Jamaica.

Footnotes: A country that may have walked out and not voted for its own internal reasons is Turkey. Another, Tuvalu, is small and climate change focused. The final two are harder to understand: Myanmar and Cuba, which spoke after the vote to pillory the US' hypocrisy for abstaining from the overall extrajudicial executions resolution.

The US Mission has yet to clearly state its reason, which most take to be about its drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. Watch this site.

At UN Gays Added to Executions Resolution, US Overall Abstains

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 21 -- Lesbians and gays were added Tuesday to a UN resolution against extrajudicial executions from which the US abstained.

In the run up to the vote, not only the United Arab Emirates for the Arab Group and Tajikistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference but also Benin for the Africa Group urged that the LGBT amendment be opposed.

Zimbabwe went further, openly referring to bestiality and saying “we won't have it foisted on us!” To the surprise of some, both South Africa and Rwanda said they would vote for the LGBT amendment, both based on evidence that gays and lesbians are disproportionately targeted.

Rick Barton of the US Mission to the UN introduced the amendment, and did not mention that the US would in fact abstain from the resolution barring extrajudicial executions, related it's reported to criticism of the US' use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere.

The vote on the LGBT amendment was 93 for, 55 against and 27 abstaining. With it added, the overall extrajudicial executions resolution passed 122 for, 1 against, 62 abstaining - including the US.

Prior to the vote, Inner City Press asked the acting Deputy Spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon if he had any guidance for member states on the LGBT amendment. No, spokesman Farhan Haq said.

In other voting, a resolution for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty passed 109 for moratorium, the US and 40 more against it, and 35 abstaining. The Defamation of Religion resolution passed 79 for, 67 against and 40 abstaining.

As US at UN Selectively Touts Its Advocacy for Gays, Positions on Executions Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 -- When a reference to protect lesbians and gays was removed from a draft resolution against arbitrary executions in the UN General Assembly's Third Committee, the US Mission was constrained in fighting it, since they wouldn't vote for the overall resolution due to continued use of drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, according to advocates.

But early on December 10, the US Mission sent some reporters a notice that Ambassador Susan Rice would at 1:15 be announcing a US sponsored amendment to be introduced in the full General Assembly. This early notice did not address the US' overall position on the resolution against arbitrary executions.

As Ambassador Rice walked into the Security Council at 10:30 on Friday morning for meetings on Iran and Haiti, Inner City Press asked if the US would vote for the resolution on executions.

Not getting an answer, Inner City Press put the same question to US Mission staff, along with questioning the seemingly selective distribution of the early notice of Rice's 1:15 appearance.

The response was that the Mission would be issuing a formal notice. But what about the US position on the resolution against executions? Watch this site.