On Haiti Cholera, UN Rebuffs Expert Gallon's Report Saying "Pay Compensation," Nail & Mail Service of Lawsuit on Ban Ki-moon: Scofflaw

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 3, with a song -- On having brought cholera to Haiti, the UN on February 28 rebuffed the call of its own UN Independent Expert on Human Rights in Haiti Gustavo Gallon that "diplomatic difficulties must be overcome to ensure a prompt end to the epidemic and provide full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people."

  Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.

Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.

Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond thissong, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:

On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...

Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.

8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.

That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.

   

After UN's Ladsous Met Sudan's Bashir, Now DSG Jan Eliasson Did It, Without Telling ICC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- After UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous met with International Criminal Court indictee Omar al Bashir last year and Inner City Press repeatedly asked about it, a diplomat supportive of ICC told Inner City Press the new standard was or would be for the UN to check with the ICC before such contacts.

  On December 11, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told Inner City Press that the ICC had not been told before Ladsous' meeting with Bashir.

   After the Financial Times reported on February 2 from the African Union summit in Addis Ababa that Bashir "met UN deputy secretary-general Jan Eliasson for an hour or so in private," UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq was breathlessly asked and said, " I was informed that he followed all the appropriate procedures in terms of having the meeting."

  But what did that mean? There was at first no follow up. So Inner City Press, after asking about US official Victoria Nuland's leaked audio about UN political chief Jeffrey Feltman, asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on this question on the International Criminal Court and the procedures for UN contacts with indictees. Back in July there was a meeting between Under Secretary-General [Hervé] Ladsous and Omer al-Bashir. And I’ve spoken to Fatou Bensouda, and she said that they were not contacted in that case. I wanted to know, just sort of yes or no, is that… In the answer you gave on the Deputy Secretary-General, are you saying that before meeting someone indicted, like Omar al-Bashir, the UN is supposed to check with the ICC or inform them in advance?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: No, what I said is that any such meetings have to be on the basis of operational necessity. And that was the case for both the meeting that was held by the Deputy Secretary-General and also with regard to the meeting by Under-Secretary-General Ladsous.

Inner City Press: Who makes that determination? They ask OLA? Or each individual makes his own-

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: The Office for Legal Affairs is routinely consulted on any of these particular meetings, yes.

   So under the new chief of OLA, the UN is saying it does NOT have to check with the ICC. Is this backsliding? What will those ICC proponents do? Seems like it's time for a briefing by OLA, or by DSG Eliasson, since Ladsous has been allowed to refuse to answer questions. We'll have more on this.

  December background: When on Sudan the International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda briefed the UN Security Council on Wednesday, about the need to arrest Sudanese president Omar al Bashir, there was an elephant in the room: UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who met with Bashir in July.

  Actually, Ladsous had been in the Security Council in the morning, but unlike the other two briefers did not speak to or take any questions from the press when he left.

  Bensouda said that either Sudan could come contest the indictment of Bashir (and others including Ahmad Haroon, to whom Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping has given free flights to and from Abyei) -- or, arrests should be made. Ladsous made no arrests in July.

  After Wednesday's meeting, Inner City Press waited and asked Bensouda what she as prosecutor thought of UN official Ladsous having met with Bashir.

  Bensouda said, "we are consistently saying that these non essential meetings should be avoided.... I do not know what was the purpose of that meeting."

  She cited a UN policy -- put out by the Office of Legal Affairs but apparently not respected by Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations -- of only essential meetings being held with indictees.

  Inner City Press asked her if, as a major / vocal state party to the Rome Statute told it, the UN is now going to give the Court or Association of State Parties prior notice before contacts like Ladsous' with Bashir.

  Bensouda replied that she wouldn't call it notice, but "we have discussed some visits before, why it was essential."

  So, Inner City Press asked, what about Ladsous' July 2013 meeting with Bashir?

  Bensouda said, "the one in July, we have not had any information about it."

  Ladsous has a history, of not answering Press questions.Video here, UK coverage here. But this is one he should answer. Will he?

  Sudanese Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, after harshly criticizing Bensouda in his speech in the Council, agreed to answer a few Inner City Press questions afterward in the so called Turkish Lounge next to the Security Council. 

 While this used to be the media's space, during the UN renovation the UN took money from Turkey for the space. Now, it is said, reporters can only go there if invited by a diplomat. This is challenged by the new Free UN Coalition for Access as a decline in working conditions and access under this UN.

  Wednesday as noted Inner City Press was invited into the Turkish Lounge area, but nevertheless was told to get back in the penned stakeout. (In noting this, the focus is not on the one endeavoring to implement the vague policy, but on the policy and vagueness themselves, which are an invitation, too often accepted, for more UN double standards.)

    Meanwhile scribes favored by -- and spying for -- the UN and its Censorship Alliance (click here) plop down in the Turkish Lounge to make cell phone calls.

  Likewise while disfavored NGOs are told they cannot be at the stakeout, last week Human Rights Watch's UN lobbyist, a former France 24 and Le Monde journalist, was at the stakeout spinning Central African Republic, with no mention of its problems' French colonial roots. As Sudan says: double standards. As Inner City Press says: Ladsous is the elephant in the room. Watch this site.

   

UN Photos from Haiti, Goma & Korea with Ban Ki-moon in Gabarron's Carriage House for Sale, Parallel Worlds

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- Alongside the real UN there is a parallel one, based on careful editing and relying on the sweat equity of 68 years of idealists, some of whom left or remained disillusioned.

   This parallel UN was on display on Wednesday night six blocks from the UN in the Gabarron Carriage House Center for the Arts on 38th Street. There was photographs from Korea, the Sinai and Eastern Congo; there were posters about Haiti and by Keith Haring. 

  There was Ban Ki-moon, returned only earlier in the day from the Nelson Mandela memorial in South Africa, with a detour through the Group of 77. There was former Group of 77 leader Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt, now Ban's Special Adviser on Africa.

   Ban in his prepared remarks did pay tribute to the unknown people who build up the UN's name. But what about the ranks of bigger name people who tear it down? Okay there was no mention of Kurt Waldheim -- as noted, that gets edited out.

   But it must be said: Ban posed under a poster about Haiti, the UN's response to the earthquake there. Yes, many idealists were there, some died. But the UN brought cholera to the island, and has yet to admit it, or to apologize. 

  By Inner City Press' last report, the UN's Office of Legal Affairs refused to even accept service of legal papers on behalf of the victims. No amount of stunning archive photos can make this go away.

   Or take for example the photo of Eastern Congo, or one tweeted by Gabarron that UN Peacekeepers only use force in self defense. The latter is no longer true: the UN now deploys attack helicopters in the Congo, and recently participated as the Malian Army fired at unarmed protesters in Kidal. 

  There has been a change, but this parallel UN doesn't acknowledge it. Nor even answer questions: the current head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous openly refuses to answer Press questions, video here, UK coverage here. The UN allows this to continue.

   Le Monde ran a puff piece about the exhibition, noting that at Gabarron "the sessions are sometimes followed by a projection of a Stevie Wonder concert at the UN, or a radio program with, among others, Audrey Hepburn and Michael Douglas." 

  Two of these are set to be honored a week from now, along with Ban Ki-moon, by the United Nations Correspondents Association, collaborators in the falseness of this parallel world, and at times spies for it (click here for that.) They preach freedom of the press -- but their leaders tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, based onreporting about Sri Lanka and conflict of interest. They've yet to institute any rule that they won't do it again.

  They say TV equipment from Samsung "doesn't involve any mission" -- when even the UN admits that it does. As one UN official at the Gabarron on Wednesday night, one from the real not parallel UN, said the UN would do better answering all questions, not hiding and stonewalling. But they have to choose: real world or its parallel?

Footnote: cursory research after the event found that the carriage house itself was put on the market last year for $8.25 million dollars. Apparently there were no takers, as the show is on there. But like some the UN increasingly seems to be, it is for sale. Watch this site.

   

Exclusive: Of $10 Charge to hear UNDP's Helen Clark Speak in NZ, Like UN's Pay to Ask Through UNCA, Free UN Coalition for Access Questions

At UNDP, Pay to Listen to Clark, Pay to Ask through UNCA, FUNCA Fights 

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 3 -- How can people be charged money, $10 for adults and even $5 for children, to hear a UN system official speak about their work for the UN?

  The Free UN Coalition for Access put this question to the UN Development Program's three top spokespeople regarding UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's upcoming August 7 talk at the Baycourt Centennial Theatre in Tauranga City, New Zealand.

  The advertisement says Clark "will be speaking about her work as head of the United Nations Development Program, the peak global body that coordinates development strategy globally, and works in over 170 countries to empower people’s lives while helping nations become more resilient. With a budget of over $US 5 billion a year."

  Five billion dollars a year but Administrator Helen Clark virtually never holds a question and answer press conference at UN Headquarters in New York.

    Last year after an inquiry by Inner City Press, she did disavow a previous business award she'd given to a tobacco firm. That came through UNDP lead spokesperson Satinder Bindra, to whom along with Clark's "personal" spokesperson Christina LoNigro and Abdel-Rahman Ghandour the Free UN Coalition for Access has sent these questions:

"This is a timely request for an explanation of how (or if) it is consistent with UN system principles and rules for UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's upcoming talk "about her work as head of the United Nations Development Program" to have an entrance fee of $10, and even $5 for children, here.

"Given that this for-pay event is impending, please provide the requested explanation upon receipt / as quickly as possible and confirm receipt of this request for explanation.

"This is also a formal request that Administrator Clark belatedly hold a question and answer press conference in UN Headquarters in New York, and for an explanation of why she has done even fewer of these than Kemal Dervis or Ad Melkert. Thank you in advance."

  We will publish any substantive response -- one would think, well in advance of the August 7 event, which is listed (tellingly) as "sold out." Will those people be given their money back?

  There is a disturbing trend of money being charged in the UN system, that the Free UN Coalition for Access is looking into. At UN press conference, the UN Correspondents Association as it becomes increasingly discredited for, among other things, spying for the UN (story, audio of UNCA's first vice president Louis Charbonneau of Reuters,document with his "you didn't get this from me"), fights ever harder to be given the first question.

  But since UNCA 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS News has said that this first question can be given to ANY dues paying member of UNCA, even one who ran for but was not elected to the Executive Committee, it is clearly a situation of pay to play: a person getting a first question at the UN in exchange for paying money. Where is the Office of Legal Affairs? The Ethics Office? OIOS?

  Also the UN gives large room S-310 to UNCA, for briefings they publicize only to those who pay them money. Even member states have started to complain about this. But those in charge of this increasingly discredited partnership, the UN Censorship Alliance, are apparently out of touch with member states and the rules of the UN that at least some of them used to previously seek to enforce.

This charging of money to children to hear a UN system official speak takes place outside of UN premises, far from New York in Helen Clark's native New Zealand. Watch this site.

   

Exclusive: France's Ambassador Araud Tells Inner City Press 391st is "Best Unit" in DR Congo Army, Being "Reassessed" After Desecration

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 24 -- While the Congolese Army was blasting away at Rumagabo on Wednesday, apparently killing civilians including children there, Inner City Press at the UN in New York exclusively asked French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud about the UN's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, quoted below.

  Specifically, Inner City Press asked how it could be that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold the post, continued UN support to the 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army after it was implicated in 135 rapes in Minova in November.

  Now, the same 391st Battalion has been implicated in the desecration of corpses. Has the Policy failed? Or has Ladsous?

  Araud responded citing higher numbers of arrests than even Ladsous has, and saying "even the Americans" are in a tough spot, since the 391st is the "best unit" of the Congolese Army, "which doesn't have many good units." (The 391st Battalion was trained by the US in 2010; Inner City Press requested, obtained a US Mission comment, here.)

  If its "best" units commits mass rape and desecrates corpses, what of the other ones, in Rumagabu for example? Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's outgoing deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey told Inner City Press the UN doesn't know anything about that fighting -- hard to believe.

  Of the Human Rights Due Diligence Policy and the 391st Battalion, Araud exclusively told Inner City Press on Wednesday that "these issues have been raised in the Council, the Secretariat was following it."

  Of the mass rapes in November Araud to his credit endeavored to give a substantive answer, saying, "after Minova twelve officers were suspended, twenty nine soldiers were arrested and two or there indicted." 

  Other have said that only two of the arrests were for the rapes. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN; Ladsous' four spokespeople have left questions unanswered for twenty five days (and one of them tried again to bypass Inner City Press for Ladsous' favorite Agence France Presse again on Wednesday, story here.)

While Ladsous and his spokespeople have never said it, Araud on Wednesday told Inner City Press that "they said the support to the units have been, I guess, drastically reduced... they didn't say totally cut."

  Here as promised is the UN Human Rights Due Diligence Policy as explained by Ban's outgoing chief lawyer Patricia O'Brien at a July 9, 2013 meeting on which Inner City Press exclusively reported:

"First, the UN cannot provide support to non-UN security forces where there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of those forces committing grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law. Secondly, where grave violations are committed by non-UN security forces that are receiving support from the UN, the UN must intercede with a view to bringing those violations to an end. And thirdly, if, despite such intercession, the situation persists, the UN must suspend support to the offending forces."

  The policy does not speak of calibrated "reduction" in support. Also, Ladsous clearly miscalculated on the risk, as evidence by the continued abuses committed by the 391st Battalion, up to desecration of corpses.

  Of that, Araud said, "Now after what jsut happen, they are re-assessing." You would think - but given Ladsous' refusal to answer questions, how would you know?

  Araud also tried to spread the blame away from Ladsous, up to Ban Ki-moon himself, telling Inner City Press "the decision is by the SG himself, there are several entities, OLA, DPKO, [Zainab] Bangura and Human Rights, the recommendations are to the S-G, now I guess they re-assessing." Before or after the Congolese Army kills more civilians? Watch this site.

   

As "Internship at UN" Is Offered for $22,000, UN Won't Contact NGO, Haiti Cholera Echo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 2 -- How hard can it be for the UN to look into the online sale of an "internship at the UN"? Inner City Press wrote about just this on the morning of May 1 and asked about it at that day's noon briefing.

  Since then Inner City Press has reported that a bidder named "Aygul" is for now ahead, bidding $22,000. The RFK Center, for which the auction is being conducted, has notresponded with any explanation.

  And even 24 hours later, the UN purported it could not find out the details, then pushed back when Inner City Press said how they could easily do this. (TNRS coverage). From the UN's May 2 transcript:

UN Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I think you had another question, Matthew? And then we’ll wrap up.

Inner City Press: yesterday I had asked you about this internship at the UN and I appreciate the answer that the UN is checking with Charity Buzz and that you don’t think that it is a UN internship. I was looking at the way it was advertised and, one, it is advertised as something that will teach you how the UN really works and get your foot in the door, and it’s not clear if that means with the RFK Center or the UN. But more than --

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well…

Inner City Press: can I just finish the question?

Spokesperson: Please do, please do.

Inner City Press: even if it’s a non-UN internship, if an NGO accredited here is part of an advertising scheme or, you know, set-up in which people are bidding $22,000 and it is being offered as sort of a way to get into the UN, is this a problem from either OLA’s [Office for Legal Affairs] point of view or the Secretary-General’s point of view that access seems to be being sold?

Spokesperson: We have said very clearly that no UN internships can be sold. That’s not how we operate. We also said very clearly to you and to others who have asked that we are in touch with this website to try to understand what is going on exactly, because we do not know. We are trying to find out. So, we can’t really comment further until we know the background on this. But, I think it is clear, we said very clearly, that UN internships are not for sale. Simple; end of story.

Inner City Press: I appreciate that. It seems like the internship is being offered with an NGO that’s accredited here, so there seems like another way to probably find this out --

Spokesperson: Well, as I say, Matthew, thank you for telling the Legal Affairs Office how to do their job. I can assure you they are looking into it. All right. Thanks very much. Have a good afternoon. Thank you.

This is the same UN Office of Legal Affairs which after 15 months of delay tersely ruled that all claims about the UN bringing cholera to Haiti were "not receivable." So, no, we do not have confidence in them cleaning this up. Watch this site.

On Western Sahara, After ICP Asks of Atlas Copco Selling Mining Equipment to Bou Craa, UN's "Two Limb Test"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 18 -- When the UN and its Global Compact were first asked about the provision of heaving mining equipment for projects in Western Sahara, the Compact said it had “discussed the matter of foreign activities in the Western Sahara territory with the UN Office of Legal Affairs [which] advised that they are not in a position to determine whether the activities in Western Sahara would contravene with the principles of the Global Compact.”

  At issue is the Swedish firm Atlas Copco having sold mining equipment 2 Pit Viper PV-275 to Bou Craa. Atlas Copco is a member of the Nordic UN Global Compact and is also member in the the steering group.

  Inner City Press published the first UN / Global Compact answer on April 17, and went to the April 18 UN noon briefing and asked about it: how could the UN Office of Legal Affairs in 2013 under Patricia O'Brien not follow its 2002 ruling under Hans Corell?

Maybe it was the comparison, but Thursday afternoon this response arrived:

Subject: Re: Western Sahara
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress [dot] com

Regarding your question on Western Sahara, here is our answer:

In 2002 the UN Legal Counsel, at the request of the Security Council, issued a legal opinion on the status of Western Sahara, a Non-Self-Governing territory under Article 73 of the Charter, which addressed the issue of foreign economic activities in the territory (“the opinion”) (see S/2002/161).

While the opinion focused on the legal framework concerning the exploitation of mineral resources in Western Sahara, it set out the applicable principles concerning any economic activities in Non-Self Governing Territories. The opinion highlighted that in recognizing the inalienable rights of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to the natural resources in their territories, the General Assembly has consistently condemned the exploitation and plundering of natural resources and any economic activities which are detrimental to the interests of the peoples of those Territories and deprive them of their legitimate rights over their natural resources.

However, the opinion also noted that the General Assembly has drawn a distinction between activities that are detrimental to the peoples of these Territories and those directed to benefit them. In particular, it referred to General Assembly resolution 50/33 of 6 December 1995, paragraph 2, in which the General Assembly affirmed “the value of foreign economic investment undertaken in collaboration with the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes in order to make a valid contribution to the socio-economic development of the Territories” (emphasis added), which position has been affirmed in later resolutions.

The opinion concluded that “recent State practice, though limited, is illustrative of an opinio juris on the part of both administering Powers and third States: where resource exploitation activities are conducted in Non-Self-Governing Territories for the benefit of the people of those Territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives, they are considered compatible with the Charter obligations of the administering Power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolutions and the principle of ‘permanent sovereignty over natural resources’ enshrined therein” (emphasis added).

Based on the foregoing analysis, it is our view that principles of international law described above establish a two-limb test with respect to the carrying out of foreign economic activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories: first, such activities must be for benefit of the people of those Territories; and second they must be carried out on their behalf, or in consultation with their representatives.

Whether these two conditions are met in this case is of course a question of fact on which the Office of Legal Affairs is not in a position to advise.

   Tellingly, Atlas Copco since its sale of the equipment has put out this:

“The situation in Western Sahara is complex and different decisions have been taken among companies that are currently doing business there or have done so in the past. Some corporations, for example some Norwegian shipping companies, have decided to discontinue doing business in Western Sahara. However, many companies are still active in Morocco and in Western Sahara.”

But can these pass the “two-limb test”? Watch this site.

As Ireland Takes Back UN Lawyer O'Brien, Who Refused Press Questions, Successor More Open?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 16 -- During Patricia O'Brien's tenure as the UN's chief lawyer, she has repeatedly refused to answer questions ranging from the UN's introduction of cholera into Haiti through the detention of UN staff by Sri Lanka to the right of the Palestinians to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  The most recent times Inner City Press has ask that Ms. O'Brien even take if not answer questions, it has been told "that will not happen." Her silence has been complete, unlike her predecessor as UN chief counsel, Nicolas Michel.

  Michel used to hold sit down press conference, for example about the Hariri Tribunal in Lebanon; he granted interviews even on the topic of his receipt of a housing subsidy from the Swiss government.

  O'Brien by contrast refused to explain her ruling effectively killing off the Security Council reforms proposed by the so-called Small Five. 

  After a formal claim was filed about the UN's introduction of cholera into Haiti, UN officials started refusing to answer even about safeguards for the future, referring all questions to O'Brien's Office of Legal Affairs. But O'Brien never answered.

  In 2009, when she came for a press conference about treaties, Inner City Press asked her about the legal dimension of two UN system staff members who remained incarcerated in Sri Lanka after what they say was government torture. Video here, from Minute 42:01.

 The Treaty Event booklet distributed at the event listed the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN and the Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel. Sri Lanka has acceded to both of them, during the General Assembly meetings in 2003. But are they being complied with and enforced?

 "I am not here to speak about enforcement" of the Conventions, Ms. O'Brien said. She referred to the UN's ironically titled "depository" role, and that she also advised the Secretary General on the "application of treaties."

 But where do these interpretations go? In Sri Lanka, the country head for the UN made belated statements about the disappeared staff that many thought ignored the government's responsibility under the Conventions. Amin Awad did not assert that the staffers were immune, at least within the scope of their work for the UN, but only that the government should inform the UN of the detention.

 "We are not going to get into interpreting specific provisions," Ms. O'Brien said.

  There were and are also questions about the UN's involvement in the Cambodia genocide tribunal, Somalia piracy enforcement, policing the (further) abuse of the UN's name, including for commercial gain, and of the UN's and OLA's commitment to freedom of speech and of the press.

  But Patricia O'Brien refused to answer any of them.

  And so it is good news for the UN, at least for its transparency, that on January 16 it was announced that "Patricia O’Brien, who now serves as legal counsel and under-secretary general at the United Nations secretariat in New York, has been nominated as Ireland’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva."

  (Inner City Press tries to be charitable as officials leave the UN. But it difficult, from a media perspective, for a stonewalling official.)

  Now if only this type of removal from the UN by re-assignment by home country would occur from another UN Under Secretary General who refuses to answer questions, Herve Ladsous of France.

  While censoring and decaying UNCA never did anything about the refusal of O'Brien to hold a press conference, or Ladsous to take questions without discrimination, the new Free UN Coalition for Access is focused on these and related issues.

  Incoming USGs, for Legal Affairs and any other post, should be required to commit to hold press conferences and answer questions, FUNCA proposes. They are paid with public money. Watch this site.