As UN Unions Banned from WIPO, FUNCA Asks of Ban Ki-moon &Censorship

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- At the UN, transparency and access are in decline, due to collusion. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at his (closed door) "Global Town Hall" meeting with UN staff this month said, "We are always accessible. I think I am one of the most accessible Secretaries-General, maybe."

  Maybe.  

  On March 4, Inner City Press heard about UN staff unions thrown out of the WIPO Staff Union meeting in Geneva, and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it.  

   Dujarric replied that he hadn't heard of it. Inner City Press, now on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, asked Will you look into it?

  Dujarric seemed to say yes, but twelve hours there was nothing. The link to the UN's transcript of the noon briefing didn't work, as it hasn't in days, and the day's UN selected Highlighted did not include this, or Inner City Press' question based on the delayed The New Republic profile, whether Ban is aloof and, for example, if he is speaking to member states about his own same sex partner benefits. (Ban is "watching" was the answer.)

  After the noon briefing, from the chair of UNCA a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance came disagreement with the profile, the statement that Ban IS funny. OK.

  So here now is an email from Geneva, which Inner City Press is publishing:

"Your e-mail of February 24, 2015 to the Head of SSCS on the matter of external individuals being invited to attend the Ordinary General Assembly of the WIPO Staff Association and their access to WIPO has been brought to my attention as the Administration’s focal point on Staff Council related matters. Consistent with our response last year to a previous similar request to invite external entities to such meetings (September 22, 2014) and as per established practice, only WIPO staff who have authorization to be on WIPO premises can be admitted. Please note that in this regard, Mr. B. Fitzgerald, as a WIPO staff member on secondment to FICSA, will be permitted to attend the Ordinary General Assembly.

"Furthermore, please note that WIPO staff are free to associate with external entities, including FICSA and CCISUA, but this should be done outside the confines of the Ordinary General Assembly of the WIPO Staff Association. "

  So... we like unions, just don't talk to other unions.  They had asked in advance, "the Human Rights Council will be reporting next week on your exchanges with two UN Special Rapporteurs regarding the unlawful dismissal of former WIPO Staff Association President, Moncef Kateb."

  We'll have more on this.

  On January 16, Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: At the Secretary-General’s town hall meeting, he'd said that he's open to talking.  “I'm always ready.  Our senior advisers are fully ready.  We are always accessible.  I think I am one of the most accessible Secretary-Generals, maybe.  So, you can count on me.  I am ready to talk to you.”  So, he was given a letter yesterday by the said elected president of the staff union Steven Kisenbera [sic] to actually have a dialogue about why there's been no staff union for the last year.  I'm sure you can talk to the other side but if he said he's the most accessible ever and he's ready to talk, is that the case?  Or what's happened with the letter?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Let's see what… the letter was sent yesterday.  Let's see what the response is.  But, I do know wherever the Secretary-General travels, he takes time to meet with staff and staff representatives around the world.

Inner City Press:  But does he do collective bargaining about conditions of work?

Spokesman:  I think there is a system and a protocol in place, staff management committees to deal with those issues that represent the Secretary-General.

Inner City Press:  And that continues without a recognized staff union?

Spokesman:  The situation of the staff union here in New York is unchanged since we last talked about it.  Have a wonderful weekend.

  Meanwhile press access at the UN has continued to decline under Ban.

  During the General Assembly debate week last September, Ban's chief of peacekeeping blocked a Press camera (Vine here), and the French mission ordered all non-French journalists to leave a briefing by President Francois Hollande in the UN Press Briefing Room.

   The Free UN Coalition for Access actively opposed both of these, as well as restrictions on getting to the General Assembly stakeout and on taking photographs from the General Assembly photographers booth. After making the latter complaint to UN spokesman Dujarric, Dujarric's office two hours later promoted a meeting ostensibly to discuss "access problems," by the UN Correspondents Association a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Now for next week this UNCA, trying to rehabilitate itself while under the helm of a past president, Giampaolo Pioli, who in his last tenure ordered the Press to remove articles from the Internet or he would move to expel it - including from the UN - has set a meeting, a once a year affair. Here's an annotated agenda:

Space, "including journalists on the waiting list for office space" -- in reality, UNCA tells correspondents that if they pay money to join it, they will be helped in getting office space from the UN. Is this proper?

"UNCA room activities, press conferences and events for 2015" -- Pioli in his last tenure granted the Ambassador of Sri Lanka Palitha Kohona, a former tenant of Pioli in one of his Manhattan apartments, the use of UNCA to screen inside the UN a film denying Rajapaksa government war crimes. It was reporting about this that Pioli ordered Inner City Press to remove from the Internet. There have been no reforms since.

"Social media" - despite Ban's UN purporting to use UNCA to reach all journalists at the UN, the Press is blocked from UNCA's moribund social media presence. Is this attributable to all 15 Executive Committee members? Just Pioli?

"UNCA soccer" - this involved providing a craven photo op for, yes, Ban Ki-moon

"UNCA Awards 2015" - in December 2014, UNCA gave out an award about Haiti with no mention of the UN bringing cholera there, or UN peacekeepers shooting at democracy demonstrators. Ban Ki-moon was in attendance and they had him take pictures with another of their awardees, which was mischaracterized as  UN award. As with office space, it seems that UNCA sells the UN.

   Similar to the claim that UN labor issues are handed in happy one-way meeting with staff during country visits, it is with this that it seems the UN will partner to say it has listened on media access issues.

  After the September 2014 General Assembly week UNCA "minutes" and partial list of grievances were provided to FUNCA by one of UNCA's many disgruntled members. They are laughable. The ejection of non-French journalists from the UN Briefing Room was not mentioned, nor the physical blocking of filming.

  Instead, UNCA complains that there is too much news during the General Assembly -- they want fewer side events -- and apparently too many journalists at the UN: they want a private wi-fi password leaving the current open wi-fi only for "guests and others."

  Tellingly, one of the UNCA proposals is for a booklet co-signed by Ban Ki-moon and UNCA.

  With this bogus list and presumably seeking that booklet, they say that the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit proposes to meet only with their Executive Committee. This is akin to a fake wrestling match, in which the two sides pretend to fight, for an audience.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has told MALU, but repeats: if they even aspire to legitimacy, the UN must reach out to all journalists, at the UN and ideally beyond, and not that subset which pay UNCA money. That is a decidedly partial subset: a fake wrestling match. 

  UNCA has become the UN's Censorship Alliance, having tried to get theinvestigative Press thrown out of the UN and, for example, attempting on October 24 to confine information about one of the lawsuits against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti to a non-webcast session for those which pay it money.

  During the October 16 UN General Assembly session to elect five new members to the UN Security Council, the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit came into the GA photographers' booth and said that only "wire service" photographers could remain.

  But MALU has not offered any definition of "wire service," in this new media age. The new Free UN Coalition for Access has demanded such a definition, most recently of Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric at the October 17 UN noon briefing. Video here. 

 Dujarric, saying he was quoting a Supreme Court justice on another topic, said, What is a wire service? I know one when I see one. 

   This is, as it were, the definition of arbitrary.

 The UN while throwing out media from workspace gives its UN Censorship Alliance a large room, which it then limits to those that pay it money in dues. Here's how it works: a new media at the UN is told, from the pinnacle of the UN's Censorship Alliance, to pay UNCA $90 and UNCA will get the UN to give the media UN office space. 

     Today's UN Censorship Alliance is unlikely to get any meaningful media access problem addressed -- members its Executive Committee have, in fact, caused or colluded in many of the decreases in access. They drafted a rule with MALU to eliminate journalist workspace at the Security Council stakeout; they withheld audio tapes and transcripts of a Ban "interview" with them, even from their own members.

   During last month's General Debate, journalists weren't even been able to go to the General Assembly stakeout without an escort from MALU -- an escort that often did not come on time, or come at all.

  There was, as well, substantive censorship. Most recently of October 16, media photographing the UN General Assembly vote for new Security Council members were ordered NOT to photograph the tables of the voters. Inner City Press for FUNCA resisted, and discussed this issue along with the elections (and Cambodia) on Huffington Post Live's "World Brief" on October 17, here.

On September 27 while Inner City Press filmed from within the GA stakeout area, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous came over and blocked -- or Banned -- the filming, demanding to know what it was for. Vine here. Then Ladsous canceled the scheduled public Q&A stakeout on Mali.

  While the new Free UN Coalition for Access challenged this censorship, on September 27 at the stakeout and following up the next week, the old UNCA has done nothing about it. In fact, UNCA big wigs have been happy to takeprivate briefings from Ladsous and others, as access at the UN for less "insider" correspondents has continued to decline.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access targeted these censorship practices in aSeptember 29 flier, online, in the UN including on the "open" bulletin board it got the UN to install (the flier was torn down, one can only imagine by whom, but has gone back up.)

   Now, in a typical UN charade, the very UNCA which oversaw this decrease in access belatedly says it is concerned and conducts UN-promoted meetings that are akin to faux, scripted wrestling matches with fake punches. This is the UNCA that played softball soccer with Ban, promoting and allowing him a photo op.

  Many of these promotions are signed by UNCA figurehead Pamela Falk of CBS, nowhere seen during noon briefing fights about media access. Meanwhile the UN Spokesperson's office is promoting a for-pay event for UNCA, by taping a flier for it on its counter. This is the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has told the UN, again on October 16, that it must address and reverse its blocking of press access, and that if it needs input it must hold a meeting open to all journalists who cover the UN, not just its chosen UNCA -- the UN's Censorship Alliance -- which has become akin to a company-created and supported union. 

   Ban's spokesperson's office declined to criticize the September 27 censorship, nor Ladsous' spokesman subsequently asking another media to confirm that it would not air an on the record interview with Ladsous' deputy Edmond Mulet about the UN bringing cholera to Haiti. Video here.

  In fact Ban's Spokesman played a part in, at least defending, a French-only briefing in the UN Press Briefing Room.

On September 23, the entourage of French President Francois Hollanderepeatedly but unsuccessfully ordered the UN accredited Press to leave theUN's Press Briefing Room.  Video here.

  On September 25 when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who peaked out from the VIP / Green Room behind the Press Briefing Room, about the incident, he said sometimes countries try to reserve the Room.

   Asked if other countries had done so during this General Assembly, Dujarric said yes.

   Inner City Press then asked Dujarric which other countries, beyond his native France:

“based on your answer at today's noon briefing, please state which countries during this UNGA have used the UN Press Briefing Room for briefing not open to all UN correspondents, other than France at 11 am on September 23. Also, what was your role on September 23 around 11 am in the room behind the Press Briefing Room podium?”

 This has been Dujarric's response:

Subject: please state which countries..
From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:06 PM
To: Inner City Press
Cc: funca

I don't have the information on the first point for you. On the second, I'm not sure that I understand it except that I was just looking into the room. I tend to be a curious person.

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

   FUNCA is left wondering: ARE there any other countries? The question has been asked again by FUNCA, elsewhere. And it has been on HuffPost Live, here. Watch this site.

Footnote: as noted the old UN Correspondents Association, which is given privileged status and set-aside first questions nearly always used for softballs, has done nothing in recent years to improve or even defend press access. In fact, members of UNCA's Executive Committee have tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, and there have been no reforms since. It's become the UN's Censorship Alliance. They provide Ban Ki-moon with photo ops playing soccer with them. This is today's UN - and FUNCA is fighting to hold the UN to its stated principles.

   

Impunity for WIPO's Gurry After He Retaliates Against Union Chief Moncef Kateb?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 11, more here -- The UN system claims to have whistleblower protections -- but retaliation is the rule rather than the exception. A recent and ongoing example is at the World Intellectual Property Organization. 

  Inner City Press has published two letters. Today it publishes another letter, "on behalf of the 176 million members of the International Trade Union Confederation," and a flier: "The attack on the WIPO Staff Association is an attack on the rights of all UN staff."

Flier for reinstatement of whistleblower Moncef Kateb at WIPO

  On October 9, Inner City Press asked Under Secretary General for Management Yukio Takasu why the UN Staff Union in New York has been left in chaos, essentially with no union recognized by management. Video here.

  In Geneva on September 19, the President of the WIPO Staff Association, Moncef Kateb was summarily dismissed in retaliation for his staff representative duties, and for whistleblowing. Here is a letter of support from the three staff association federations representing 120,000 international civil servants.

   WIPO's Director General Francis Gurry is head of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high level committee on management. Meanwhile, Gurry is the subject of preliminary investigations into two different charges, one for influencing a procurement process, the other for using the Geneva police to obtain the DNA of WIPO staff so as to identify the author of a letter against him. 

  Here is the Deputy Director General's September 17 letterspecifying the charges against Gurry and asking if he will be suspended.

  Here also is the September 19 letter of the Ambassador of Estonia to the Ambassador of Finland, as chair of the Assembly of WIPO, urging the charges against Gurry be presented to entire Assembly. 

  Ban Ki-moon has still done nothing about this.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press:  The Secretary-General started this review of whistleblower protection at the UN some time ago, I think more than a year ago.  Has there been any finding or public product from that?  It was a Canadian judge.  Last time the whistleblower protections came up, he named someone to look into it.  But, whatever happened to that?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I believe they are going about their work.  I don't have anything to share about that.  Once that's done, we'll be able to say something more.

Inner City Press had asked Ban's lead spokesman on September 5:

Inner City Press: There was this decision over the Labor Day weekend in the case of Mr. [James] Wasserström, which was a big whistleblower case...Tthe decision that was made that still upheld $15,000 against the Secretary-General for having refused to comply with production and discovery orders, but it cut back on the rights and protections of whistleblowers and that this may violate this 2014 law, requiring the US Government to withhold funds if the UN doesn't enact best practice for whistleblowers.  What is the UN's response to this criticism?

Spokesman:  I should have something more detailed for you.  But, obviously, you know, we respect the decisions made by the internal justice system here.  As for whether or not those decisions violate the laws of the United States or any other country, that is not for me to interpret.

Inner City Press:  What about the decision that the Secretary-General erred in not complying with discovery orders, do you accept that?

Spokesman:  As I said, I hope to have something further.

   Twelve days later, the whistleblower question has still not been answered. So Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq, who said something had been received from the UN Ethics Office. Why was it not provided to Inner City Press? Then this email:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Your questions on Wasserstrom ruling
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.co

In response to your questions, we would like to reaffirm the Secretary-General's strong support for the professional work done by the Ethics Office. Beyond that, in the case you have referred to, the UN Administrative Tribunal has ruled that Mr. Wasserstrom’s original UNDT application was not receivable, on the basis that the Ethics Office does not make administrative decisions, but rather is limited to issuing recommendations to the Administration. In not making administrative decisions, findings of the Ethics Office are not subject to UNDT review pursuant to the requirements of the UNDT Statute.

The Ethics Office concurs with this judgment. Due to its independent status, and in order to protect its essential role as an independent and impartial body within the Organization representing neither management or staff, the Ethics Office considers that its determinations cannot be deemed attributable to the Secretary-General, and therefore cannot constitute administrative decisions.

  As this was sent, Inner City Press was on a press conference call about the litigation against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti; it was said the UN after 15 month called the claim "not receivable" -- just like in the whistlblower case. This is today's UN.

  Inner City Press on September 17 asked Haq for an update into the inquiry into whistleblower protections that Ban Ki-moon ordered. We'll have more on this.

  Eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Chambas as the head of the peacekeeping mission being investigated for under-reporting attacks on civilians was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, on September 12 the UN on September 12 confirmed the move.

  Inner City Press had asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians. 

  On September 12, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric insisted he didn't want to "pre-judge" the inquiry.  But by giving the new post, this has already been done. There is little to no accountability in today's UN.

  Chambas was quoted last month that the UN “cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced,” despite a supposed protection of civilians mandate.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it on August 22 and he said “we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.” But in the two weeks since, nothing.

   Now Inner City Press has exclusively learned from multiple sources that Chambas is set to be rewarded, or moved, to the Dakar, Senegal UN Office on West Africa post vacated by Said Djinnit.

   This would be classic UN: amid a scandal about UNAMID under Chambas covering up the murder and abuse of civilians, a promotion, in a game of musical chairs.

   On August 22, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: in Darfur, it seems that Mr. Mohamed ibn Chambas went to Kalma Camp and met with residents who expressed a variety of complaints, but he was quoted as saying there that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced, and it has left many people confused whether, what is UNAMID’s role in terms of protection of civilians given these [inaudible] entrances in the camp and people lying on the ground?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I will… we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.

  Two weeks, no answer. Now this. 

  UN Peacekeeping and its mission in Darfur continue take a selective and lax approach to protecting civilians.  

   This example concerns the UN's evolving statements on the Al-Salam camp. 

  After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.

  On August 7, Inner City Press asked the Joint Special Representative of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, about the status of the probe.

   Chambas told Inner City Press he had met earlier in the day with the commission, whose members will be on their say to Darfur.

 Inner City Press asked if the report will be public. Chambas only said his staff will cooperate. Apparently it will be up to Ban Ki-moon, or even Herve Ladsous, to decide to release or withhold the report.

 Back in Khartoum on August 11, Chambas said this:

"And on the attack on Alsalam camp, let me state that we have information about this. We have always stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Sudan lays with the Government. This is a sovereign country, it has law enforcement obligations, it has its justice system and the AU, the UN is only here to facilitate and ensure that law and order and justice are maintained and are enforced according to due process of law. So, we want to say that we will continue to engage with the Government of Sudan in accordance with its own protection of civilian mandate and to ensure that the activities on law enforcement agencies are carried out without infringement of the rights of innocent civilians specially vulnerable communities in IDP camps. We hope that on the other hand residents of IDP camps can understand and do understand that possession of weapons, carrying of weapons is not allowed in IDP camps under international humanitarian law.

"It’s also imperative, and it’s a responsibility of the leaders of IDP camps to ensure that no one is using these camps to keep weapons or to hide weapons, because this is against international humanitarian law. These are the issues involved there and we as UNAMID we will continue to work with both sides, with IDP leaders to educate them what is permissible in these camps and what is not, and at the same time working  with Government to enforce legitimately law and order but to do that respecting the civic and human rights of the citizens and also respecting due process of law. Thank you."

  Since this seemed to defer to Sudan's Abu Tira, and even to blame the victims, Inner City Press on August 13 asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Darfur, Missouri and Afghanistan.  On Darfur, photos have come out of the Sudanese uniformed Abu Tira forces going through a refugee camp or [internally displaced persons] camp in El Salam and making the residents lie on the ground.  And Mr. Chambas was asked about it and said that this was entirely up to the Sudanese and it just seems sort of strange. I mean, I know there is a Human Rights component to these peacekeeping missions.  Does the UN, does UNAMID [United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] or does anyone in the Secretariat, are they aware of these photographs?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  I will check.

  Twenty three hours later, Dujarric sent nothing to Inner City Press. But UNAMID issued a belated statement, which seems to contradict or attempt to rehabilitate Chambas' dismissive August 11 comments:

"Following a security raid conducted on Al Salam IDP camp on 5 August when individuals were arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs, weapons and ammunition, UNAMID monitored the trials of those arrested during the operation; most of whom have since been released. UNAMID has been engaging relevant state authorities on the conditions of those still being detained.

"Other security raids have been conducted in Otash and Dereig camps and are part of a wider campaign by the South Darfur authorities to address the high level of criminality in the State, especially around Nyala.

"The security raids have generated alarm and anxiety amongst IDPs in Kalma camp, who are anticipating a similar operation at their camp and have expressed their concerns to UNAMID."

 We'll continue on this.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.

  Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.
 
  Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.

 Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.

  On May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions, video here,compilation here.

   Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."

   But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.

  Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?  There is little to no accountability in today's UN. And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now taking this on.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.

   

Push to Review World Intellectual Property Organization's Gurry After He Retaliates Against Union Chief

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 22, more here -- The UN system claims to have whistleblower protections -- but retaliation is the rule rather than the exception. The most recent example is at the World Intellectual Property Organization, which holds its own General Assembly today in Geneva, parallel to the one in New York. Inner City Press now publishes two letters.

  On September 19, the President of the WIPO Staff Association, Moncef Kateb was summarily dismissed in retaliation for his staff representative duties, and for whistleblowing. Here is a letter of support from the three staff association federations representing 120,000 international civil servants.

   WIPO's Director General Francis Gurry is head of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high level committee on management. Meanwhile, Gurry is the subject of preliminary investigations into two different charges, one for influencing a procurement process, the other for using the Geneva police to obtain the DNA of WIPO staff so as to identify the author of a letter against him. 

  Here now is the Deputy Director General's September 17 letter specifying the charges against Gurry and asking if he will be suspended.

  Here also is the September 19 letter of the Ambassador of Estonia to the Ambassador of Finland, as chair of the Assembly of WIPO, urging the charges against Gurry be presented to entire Assembly at its meeting. We'll have more on this.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press:  The Secretary-General started this review of whistleblower protection at the UN some time ago, I think more than a year ago.  Has there been any finding or public product from that?  It was a Canadian judge.  Last time the whistleblower protections came up, he named someone to look into it.  But, whatever happened to that?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I believe they are going about their work.  I don't have anything to share about that.  Once that's done, we'll be able to say something more.

   Inner City Press had asked Ban's lead spokesman on September 5:

Inner City Press: There was this decision over the Labor Day weekend in the case of Mr. [James] Wasserström, which was a big whistleblower case...Tthe decision that was made that still upheld $15,000 against the Secretary-General for having refused to comply with production and discovery orders, but it cut back on the rights and protections of whistleblowers and that this may violate this 2014 law, requiring the US Government to withhold funds if the UN doesn't enact best practice for whistleblowers.  What is the UN's response to this criticism?

Spokesman:  I should have something more detailed for you.  But, obviously, you know, we respect the decisions made by the internal justice system here.  As for whether or not those decisions violate the laws of the United States or any other country, that is not for me to interpret.

Inner City Press:  What about the decision that the Secretary-General erred in not complying with discovery orders, do you accept that?

Spokesman:  As I said, I hope to have something further.

   Twelve days later, the whistleblower question has still not been answered. So Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq, who said something had been received from the UN Ethics Office. Why was it not provided to Inner City Press? Then this email:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Your questions on Wasserstrom ruling
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.co

In response to your questions, we would like to reaffirm the Secretary-General's strong support for the professional work done by the Ethics Office. Beyond that, in the case you have referred to, the UN Administrative Tribunal has ruled that Mr. Wasserstrom’s original UNDT application was not receivable, on the basis that the Ethics Office does not make administrative decisions, but rather is limited to issuing recommendations to the Administration. In not making administrative decisions, findings of the Ethics Office are not subject to UNDT review pursuant to the requirements of the UNDT Statute.

The Ethics Office concurs with this judgment. Due to its independent status, and in order to protect its essential role as an independent and impartial body within the Organization representing neither management or staff, the Ethics Office considers that its determinations cannot be deemed attributable to the Secretary-General, and therefore cannot constitute administrative decisions.

  As this was sent, Inner City Press was on a press conference call about the litigation against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti; it was said the UN after 15 month called the claim "not receivable" -- just like in the whistlblower case. This is today's UN.

  Inner City Press on September 17 asked Haq for an update into the inquiry into whistleblower protections that Ban Ki-moon ordered. We'll have more on this.

  Eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Chambas as the head of the peacekeeping mission being investigated for under-reporting attacks on civilians was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, on September 12 the UN on September 12 confirmed the move.

  Inner City Press had asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians. 

  On September 12, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric insisted he didn't want to "pre-judge" the inquiry.  But by giving the new post, this has already been done. There is little to no accountability in today's UN.

  Chambas was quoted last month that the UN “cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced,” despite a supposed protection of civilians mandate.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it on August 22 and he said “we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.” But in the two weeks since, nothing.

   Now Inner City Press has exclusively learned from multiple sources that Chambas is set to be rewarded, or moved, to the Dakar, Senegal UN Office on West Africa post vacated by Said Djinnit.

   This would be classic UN: amid a scandal about UNAMID under Chambas covering up the murder and abuse of civilians, a promotion, in a game of musical chairs.

   On August 22, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: in Darfur, it seems that Mr. Mohamed ibn Chambas went to Kalma Camp and met with residents who expressed a variety of complaints, but he was quoted as saying there that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced, and it has left many people confused whether, what is UNAMID’s role in terms of protection of civilians given these [inaudible] entrances in the camp and people lying on the ground?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I will… we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.

  Two weeks, no answer. Now this. 

  UN Peacekeeping and its mission in Darfur continue take a selective and lax approach to protecting civilians.  

   This example concerns the UN's evolving statements on the Al-Salam camp. 

  After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.

  On August 7, Inner City Press asked the Joint Special Representative of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, about the status of the probe.

   Chambas told Inner City Press he had met earlier in the day with the commission, whose members will be on their say to Darfur.

 Inner City Press asked if the report will be public. Chambas only said his staff will cooperate. Apparently it will be up to Ban Ki-moon, or even Herve Ladsous, to decide to release or withhold the report.

 Back in Khartoum on August 11, Chambas said this:

"And on the attack on Alsalam camp, let me state that we have information about this. We have always stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Sudan lays with the Government. This is a sovereign country, it has law enforcement obligations, it has its justice system and the AU, the UN is only here to facilitate and ensure that law and order and justice are maintained and are enforced according to due process of law. So, we want to say that we will continue to engage with the Government of Sudan in accordance with its own protection of civilian mandate and to ensure that the activities on law enforcement agencies are carried out without infringement of the rights of innocent civilians specially vulnerable communities in IDP camps. We hope that on the other hand residents of IDP camps can understand and do understand that possession of weapons, carrying of weapons is not allowed in IDP camps under international humanitarian law.

"It’s also imperative, and it’s a responsibility of the leaders of IDP camps to ensure that no one is using these camps to keep weapons or to hide weapons, because this is against international humanitarian law. These are the issues involved there and we as UNAMID we will continue to work with both sides, with IDP leaders to educate them what is permissible in these camps and what is not, and at the same time working  with Government to enforce legitimately law and order but to do that respecting the civic and human rights of the citizens and also respecting due process of law. Thank you."

  Since this seemed to defer to Sudan's Abu Tira, and even to blame the victims, Inner City Press on August 13 asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Darfur, Missouri and Afghanistan.  On Darfur, photos have come out of the Sudanese uniformed Abu Tira forces going through a refugee camp or [internally displaced persons] camp in El Salam and making the residents lie on the ground.  And Mr. Chambas was asked about it and said that this was entirely up to the Sudanese and it just seems sort of strange. I mean, I know there is a Human Rights component to these peacekeeping missions.  Does the UN, does UNAMID [United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] or does anyone in the Secretariat, are they aware of these photographs?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  I will check.

  Twenty three hours later, Dujarric sent nothing to Inner City Press. But UNAMID issued a belated statement, which seems to contradict or attempt to rehabilitate Chambas' dismissive August 11 comments:

"Following a security raid conducted on Al Salam IDP camp on 5 August when individuals were arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs, weapons and ammunition, UNAMID monitored the trials of those arrested during the operation; most of whom have since been released. UNAMID has been engaging relevant state authorities on the conditions of those still being detained.

"Other security raids have been conducted in Otash and Dereig camps and are part of a wider campaign by the South Darfur authorities to address the high level of criminality in the State, especially around Nyala.

"The security raids have generated alarm and anxiety amongst IDPs in Kalma camp, who are anticipating a similar operation at their camp and have expressed their concerns to UNAMID."

 We'll continue on this.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.

  Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.

  Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.

 Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.

  On May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions, video here,compilation here.

   Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."

   But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.

  Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?  There is little to no accountability in today's UN. And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now taking this on.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.

   

WIPO Retaliates Against Staff Union President Moncef Kateb, While Ban Ki-moon's UN Is Proud That Whistleblower Case "Not Receivable"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 20, more here -- The UN system claims to have whistleblower protections -- but retaliation is the rule rather than the exception. The most recent example is at the World Intellectual Property Organization.

  On September 19, the President of the WIPO Staff Association, Moncef Kateb was summarily dismissed in retaliation for his staff representative duties, and for whistleblowing. Here is a letter of support from the three staff association federations representing 120,000 international civil servants.

   WIPO's Director General Francis Gurry is head of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high level committee on management. Meanwhile, Gurry the subject of preliminary investigations into two different charges, one for influencing a procurement process, the other for using the Geneva police to obtain the DNA of WIPO staff so as to identify the author of a letter against him. This is today's UN system.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press:  The Secretary-General started this review of whistleblower protection at the UN some time ago, I think more than a year ago.  Has there been any finding or public product from that?  It was a Canadian judge.  Last time the whistleblower protections came up, he named someone to look into it.  But, whatever happened to that?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I believe they are going about their work.  I don't have anything to share about that.  Once that's done, we'll be able to say something more.

   Inner City Press had asked Ban's lead spokesman on September 5:

Inner City Press: There was this decision over the Labor Day weekend in the case of Mr. [James] Wasserström, which was a big whistleblower case...Tthe decision that was made that still upheld $15,000 against the Secretary-General for having refused to comply with production and discovery orders, but it cut back on the rights and protections of whistleblowers and that this may violate this 2014 law, requiring the US Government to withhold funds if the UN doesn't enact best practice for whistleblowers.  What is the UN's response to this criticism?

Spokesman:  I should have something more detailed for you.  But, obviously, you know, we respect the decisions made by the internal justice system here.  As for whether or not those decisions violate the laws of the United States or any other country, that is not for me to interpret.

Inner City Press:  What about the decision that the Secretary-General erred in not complying with discovery orders, do you accept that?

Spokesman:  As I said, I hope to have something further.

   Twelve days later, the whistleblower question has still not been answered. So Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq, who said something had been received from the UN Ethics Office. Why was it not provided to Inner City Press? Then this email:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Your questions on Wasserstrom ruling
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.co

In response to your questions, we would like to reaffirm the Secretary-General's strong support for the professional work done by the Ethics Office. Beyond that, in the case you have referred to, the UN Administrative Tribunal has ruled that Mr. Wasserstrom’s original UNDT application was not receivable, on the basis that the Ethics Office does not make administrative decisions, but rather is limited to issuing recommendations to the Administration. In not making administrative decisions, findings of the Ethics Office are not subject to UNDT review pursuant to the requirements of the UNDT Statute.

The Ethics Office concurs with this judgment. Due to its independent status, and in order to protect its essential role as an independent and impartial body within the Organization representing neither management or staff, the Ethics Office considers that its determinations cannot be deemed attributable to the Secretary-General, and therefore cannot constitute administrative decisions.

  As this was sent, Inner City Press was on a press conference call about the litigation against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti; it was said the UN after 15 month called the claim "not receivable" -- just like in the whistleblower case. This is today's UN.

  Inner City Press on September 17 asked Haq for an update into the inquiry into whistleblower protections that Ban Ki-moon ordered. We'll have more on this.

  Eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Chambas as the head of the peacekeeping mission being investigated for under-reporting attacks on civilians was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, on September 12 the UN on September 12 confirmed the move.

  Inner City Press had asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians. 

  On September 12, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric insisted he didn't want to "pre-judge" the inquiry.  But by giving the new post, this has already been done. There is little to no accountability in today's UN.

  Chambas was quoted last month that the UN “cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced,” despite a supposed protection of civilians mandate.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it on August 22 and he said “we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.” But in the two weeks since, nothing.

   Now Inner City Press has exclusively learned from multiple sources that Chambas is set to be rewarded, or moved, to the Dakar, Senegal UN Office on West Africa post vacated by Said Djinnit.

   This would be classic UN: amid a scandal about UNAMID under Chambas covering up the murder and abuse of civilians, a promotion, in a game of musical chairs.

   On August 22, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: in Darfur, it seems that Mr. Mohamed ibn Chambas went to Kalma Camp and met with residents who expressed a variety of complaints, but he was quoted as saying there that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced, and it has left many people confused whether, what is UNAMID’s role in terms of protection of civilians given these [inaudible] entrances in the camp and people lying on the ground?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I will… we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.

  Two weeks, no answer. Now this. 

  UN Peacekeeping and its mission in Darfur continue take a selective and lax approach to protecting civilians.  

   This example concerns the UN's evolving statements on the Al-Salam camp. 

  After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.

  On August 7, Inner City Press asked the Joint Special Representative of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, about the status of the probe.

   Chambas told Inner City Press he had met earlier in the day with the commission, whose members will be on their say to Darfur.

 Inner City Press asked if the report will be public. Chambas only said his staff will cooperate. Apparently it will be up to Ban Ki-moon, or even Herve Ladsous, to decide to release or withhold the report.

 Back in Khartoum on August 11, Chambas said this:

"And on the attack on Alsalam camp, let me state that we have information about this. We have always stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Sudan lays with the Government. This is a sovereign country, it has law enforcement obligations, it has its justice system and the AU, the UN is only here to facilitate and ensure that law and order and justice are maintained and are enforced according to due process of law. So, we want to say that we will continue to engage with the Government of Sudan in accordance with its own protection of civilian mandate and to ensure that the activities on law enforcement agencies are carried out without infringement of the rights of innocent civilians specially vulnerable communities in IDP camps. We hope that on the other hand residents of IDP camps can understand and do understand that possession of weapons, carrying of weapons is not allowed in IDP camps under international humanitarian law.

"It’s also imperative, and it’s a responsibility of the leaders of IDP camps to ensure that no one is using these camps to keep weapons or to hide weapons, because this is against international humanitarian law. These are the issues involved there and we as UNAMID we will continue to work with both sides, with IDP leaders to educate them what is permissible in these camps and what is not, and at the same time working  with Government to enforce legitimately law and order but to do that respecting the civic and human rights of the citizens and also respecting due process of law. Thank you."

  Since this seemed to defer to Sudan's Abu Tira, and even to blame the victims, Inner City Press on August 13 asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Darfur, Missouri and Afghanistan.  On Darfur, photos have come out of the Sudanese uniformed Abu Tira forces going through a refugee camp or [internally displaced persons] camp in El Salam and making the residents lie on the ground.  And Mr. Chambas was asked about it and said that this was entirely up to the Sudanese and it just seems sort of strange. I mean, I know there is a Human Rights component to these peacekeeping missions.  Does the UN, does UNAMID [United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] or does anyone in the Secretariat, are they aware of these photographs?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  I will check.

  Twenty three hours later, Dujarric sent nothing to Inner City Press. But UNAMID issued a belated statement, which seems to contradict or attempt to rehabilitate Chambas' dismissive August 11 comments:

"Following a security raid conducted on Al Salam IDP camp on 5 August when individuals were arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs, weapons and ammunition, UNAMID monitored the trials of those arrested during the operation; most of whom have since been released. UNAMID has been engaging relevant state authorities on the conditions of those still being detained.

"Other security raids have been conducted in Otash and Dereig camps and are part of a wider campaign by the South Darfur authorities to address the high level of criminality in the State, especially around Nyala.

"The security raids have generated alarm and anxiety amongst IDPs in Kalma camp, who are anticipating a similar operation at their camp and have expressed their concerns to UNAMID."

 We'll continue on this.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.

  Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.
 
  Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.

 Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.

  On May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions, video here,compilation here.

   Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."

   But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.

  Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?  There is little to no accountability in today's UN. And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now taking this on.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.