Wrap Up I: An UNGA of Kerry's Awkward Moment, Obama & Raul, China's Checkbook, Restrictions on Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- As the UN removes its maze of metal detectors until next year, and New York City traffic flows up First Avenue again, what did this week's UN General Assembly debate come down to?

   Perhaps the moment of the week was US Secretary of State John Kerry finding Syria's Walid Moualem in the clubhouse of the Security Council's Permanent Five members, then looking around for another place to pass time. (Inner City Press first tweeted it, here.)

 While Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov then made back to back statements at the Security Council stakeout without taking any questions, the next day October 1 Lavrov took an hour worth of questions, in the UN Press Briefing Room.

  This UN Press Briefing Room became a battleground, with Brazil trying to follow France in reserving the front rows for its diplomats rather than journalists - they relented- and France innovating, in its way, by using seat-holders who rose to their feet to cede their place to French minister Laurent Fabius and, in one case, Segolene Royal.

   Fabius scowled when Inner City Press asked “his” President Francois Hollande about French soldiers rapes in the Central African Republic and UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous linking rapes to “R&R.” Then on October 1Fabius refused to take a Press question whether Turkey's airstrikes on Kurds met the three conditions he had just announced.

   Ladsous, apparently angrier than usual at the question to Hollande, scowled up at the photo booths during the Peacekeeping Summit, then directed his flunkies to control the UN microphone at the cramped third floor UNTV stakeout, to the extent of Banning a question to Mali's foreign minister. On that, we'll have more.

  This too: Turkey used the UN Press Briefing Room for a staged “press conference” where it chose the question in advance then told Inner City Press, when it asked a follow-up, not to “interfere.” The old UN Correspondents Association, typically, did nothing about this (instead they lured the Syrian Coalition's Khaled Khoja into their clubhouse from which no livestream or comments on journalists' arrest in Turkey ever emerged); the new Free UN Coalition for Access fought this and other forms of UN decay.

  As if in a parallel world, China made a number of financial commitments -- $2 billion to a South-South fund, money to UN women, training to the African Union - and drew praise in later General Assembly speeches, which were increasingly ill-attended. Once US President Obama left, after the briefest of photo ops with Russia's Vladimir Putin and a longer one with Raul Castro, much of the security was withdrawn and the air came out of the balloon.

 The UN again closed its big cafeteria, in which food workers were told to dine in a separate room, and after a week of speeches about transparency refused to answer the Press even on how many candidates there are to head the UN refugees agency UNHCR, and who is heading the panel to make the recommendation. We'll have more on this.
   

As Reuters Brags of Bagging Syria Letters, For & From Whom, Threats to Leave

By Matthew Russell Lee, Media Critique

UNITED NATIONS, April 11 -- In the stand-off between Syria and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's UN on whether to start a chemical weapons probe with one site or agree on more before beginning, the use of who leaks to whom, and why, has come to the fore.

  Reuters brags that Syrian foreign minister Walid al “Moualem also complained about the leak of previous letters exchanged between Syria and the United Nations to Reuters, saying it 'left the impression of a lack of seriousness on the part of the (UN) secretariat on cooperation in good faith.'”

  Beyond the bragging, a question being asked is who leaks to whom, and why? How does a negotiation letter from Syria to Ban Ki-moon and his German negotiator Angela Kane get leaked to Reuters, in Reuters own description?

  Either Ban's UN Secretariat gives it to Reuters, or there is a middle man. Some surmise that Ban's UN gives the letter to the Missions of the UK or France, which in turn give it to Reuters.

  (This is not unlike, at a lower level, the UN's photos of its raid on Inner City Press' office on March 18 being leaked to BuzzFeed on March 21, through an anonymous “Concerned UN Reporter” -- not unrelated to Reuters, not unrelated at all.)

  Journalists general like leaks, and Inner City Press is no exception. But there are different kinds of “leaks.” When the Bush Administration gave material about Iraq to Judith Miller, and she gave them anonymous, was that a good leak? An honorable leak? A “scoop”?

  While an angry individual whistleblower in the UN Secretariat might be one thing, for the Ban Ki-moon administration to intentional leak the negotiating document submitted to it be a member state would be a problem. Since the UN is owned by all 193 member states, who would authorize such a leak?

  But perhaps Ban's UN would think it fine to share Syria's letter with France and the UK (one wonders if this would go the other way). One would expect a “no leaking” commitment be sought and obtained, but who knows?

  While one is for some reason not supposed to say so, Reuters is often used by the UK, French and other other missions for intentional leaks. This makes Reuters' UN bureau and its bureau chief valuable to these important Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council.

  (Again turning to the smaller press freedom picture, this is what makes it so outrageous that Reuters UN bureau chief threatened that if the UN did not throw Inner City Press out, he would have no choice but to ask about transferring out of the UN to another beat at Reuters.

  Given the functions he and Reuters serve at the UN, at least for some important Missions, was that an appropriate threat? Did he inform the big wigs at Reuters about it, and do they stand behind it? 

  They have been urged to inquire into their UN bureau's anti-Press moves, in their own names and as anonymous trolls. (Which has continued.)

  Those asked include, so far, Stephen J. Adler, Editor in Chief, Paul Ingrassia, Deputy Editor in Chief, Walden Siew, Top News Editor, Greg McCune, “Ethics,” and one other. But despite the issues raised, twice now, this mega corporation will not respond or more importantly reform. Kingdom of trolls? Watch this site.