On Haiti Cholera, US Filing Supports UN Impunity, As Ban Ki-moon Dodges Legal Papers

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 8, with a song -- On the UNhaving brought cholera to Haiti, the US government on July 7 filed another letter supporting the UN's immunity -- or in this case, impunity. 

   The US' 15-page letter cites in support of UN immunity the case of Cynthia Brzak, regarding sexual harassment by UNHCR's Ruud Lubber, and a letter to US Ambassador Samantha Power from the UN's counsel Miguel de Serpa Soares, which Inner City Press is putting online, here.  TheUS letter to the court is here.

  Beyond supporting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dodging the service of legal papers -- on which Ban's spokespeople have themselves dodged and more -- the US letter cited the UN - Haiti program on cholera on which the UN's Pedro Medrano has yet to take Press questions.

  The US letter says, "The General Convention and the SOFA provide that any dispute between a state party and the UN shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, see General Convention, art. VIII, § 30; SOFA art. VIII, § 58; and the SOFA provides that any dispute between MINUTSAH [sic] and the Government of Haiti shall be submitted to arbitration, see SOFA art. VIII, § 57."

  So much for "we the peoples."

   Back on May 15, opposition to the US' first iteration of its position was filed, with amicus support from a bevy of law professors, an ex judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and former UN human rights rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak.

  Nowak said, "the UN needs to understand that immunity cannot mean impunity. If it refuses to provide people alleging harm with a path to justice, courts will refuse to uphold its immunity.”

   But then as now, the UN under  Ban Ki-moon wouldn't even bring its envoy on cholera Pedro Medrano forward for questioning. Inner City Press has asked, for example on April 21:

Inner City Press: … seemed to quote Mr. Medrano as predicting in advance that this panel he would be on with the Government may provide assistance, but he said, like, the word “compensation” won’t be used. So I wanted to know, is that a UN position? Is it his prediction of that the Government doesn’t want the word “compensation” used? And is there some way that we can have by video or otherwise, a kind of, some kind of presentation by Mr. Medrano?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: Sure, on Haiti, over the weekend, the terms of reference on this high level committee on cholera, which would be a UN and Government of Haiti committee, have been officially agreed on. And the aim is really for the joint effort of to fight cholera between the UN and the Government of Haiti. The Committee aims at further improving the coordination response to the epidemic and obviously we expect to have an official announcement in the next couple of days. But this is a very important… the establishment of this committee is a very important one in terms of our efforts, and most importantly the Government of Haiti’s efforts, to address not only cholera but also the associated water and sanitation issues....

Inner City Press: Just on Medrano, I will like to say again if you could do a briefing in this room it would help.

Spokesman Dujarric: I hear you.

  But did he? There has still been no briefing. Members of the US Congress have written to State Department diplomats about this case in the past. Based on this letter, will they do so again?

   As the first US answer was released, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was partying with in-house scribes, most of whom never pursued this most outrageous case of UN impunity, or even asked if Ban Ki-moon like a scoff law was hiding from the process server.

 Now on July 8, these same scribes are offering symbiosis, bread and circuses, or pretzels and beer, in the large room Ban's UN gives them, usually sitting empty even as the News Agency of Nigeria was evicted due to lack of space. This is today's UN.

  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 Bor Killings, South Sudan Wants Review of UN Mandate & SOFA -- Now Obama Sanctions?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April  20 -- With the death-count from the killings at the UN Peacekeeping facility in Bor not yet fixed, South Sudan's foreign minister Barnaba Marial Benjamin on April 18 said the UN has been told its Status of Forces Agreement and mandate will be re-negotiated - and by implication possibly ended. 

  Will this trigger the sanctions threatened by the US even before Bor?

  The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations has or is supposed to have SOFAs everywhere it operates.

  For context, the SOFA for the UN's Abyei mission was unsigned for a long time, even as four Ethiopian peacekeepers were killed by landmines but weren't evacuated in the more straight forward way. DPKO chief Herve Ladsous repeatedly refused to answer Press questions about this. Compilation here.

   On the other hand, in Haiti the claims commission provided for in the SOFA was never established, now an issue in litigation about the UN bringing cholera to Haiti. Again, Ladsous refuses to answer Press questions. Since in South Sudan, it is deputy Toby Lanzer doing the talking and not Hilde Johnson, perhaps someone in DPKO other than Ladsous can answer Press questions?

   Ladsous has for example gone semi-public that South Sudan was blocking an unspecified national contingent of peacekeepers he wanted to send there. 

  While Ladsous refused to answer, multiple sources told Inner City Press it concerned Morocco soldiers that South Sudan said it wouldn't accept due to adherence to the African Union position on Western Sahara. That Ladsous is a former French diplomat, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop DPKO, makes the refusal to answer, now aped by the French Mission to the UN, trigger more rather than less inquiry.

   This new SOFA talk comes as South Sudan's information minister on April 18 cast blame on the UN. He said that the UN should not have fired bullets in the air, it stirred up the youth.

  On April 17, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told the press at the day's noon briefing, "the UN Mission in South Sudan gave us more details on the attack on its base in Bor.  It says that the assailants — a mob of armed civilians — came to the base under the guise of peaceful demonstrators intending to present a petition to UNMISS.  The armed mob forced entry onto the site and opened fire on the internally displaced persons sheltering inside the base."

  On April 18 in Juba, South Sudan's Information Minister -- about whom Inner City Press has previously sought comment from the UN, without anything of substance being offered -- said that IDPs celebrating rebels recapturing Bentiu provoked the youth to protest, and that the UN angered them by firing in the air.

  Back on April 3, US President Barack Obama threatened sanctions with regard to South Sudan. Are they triggered now? If not now, when?

  Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney said "both the Government of South Sudan and Riek Machar’s rebels must immediately engage in and follow through on the inclusive peace process led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development."

   One issue has been that while Uganda intervened on the side of the government, it is also part of the ostensible mediator, IGAD. Obama's Executive Order refers to"international security presences" and "other peacekeeping operations" - does either term encompass the Uganda forces?

  Back on March 25, returning from South Sudan and Darfur John Ging, the Operations Director of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and his Emergencies colleague Yasmin Haque spoke movingly of the need to reduce the number of checkpoints on aid convoys in South Sudan.

Inner City Press asked Ging if this increased checking wasn't a result of what even the UN has said was a mistake, thetrucking rather than flying of weapons to the Ghanian peacekeepers in Bentiu.

  Ging acknowledged that this was the government's rationale for the checks but said, "We do not accept it."

  Time did not permit but there is an obvious follow up question: if the UN wants to put the arms-shipment scandal behind it, shouldn't it be more transparent? It has said its probe is finished, but no written report has been made public.

UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, speaking to the Security Council on March 19, chose instead to complain of a "vilification of the UN" including in "media articles."

  Inner City Press asked Ging and Haque if they had witnessed such vilification during their trip to South Sudan. No, Ging said, this was not directed at the UN's humanitarian side. So it's either limited to UN Peacekeeping of Ladsous and Hilde Johnson, or Ladsous has a lower threshold of getting angry at media coverage.

  At the third question, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access thanked Ging for doing Q&A when he comes back from trips, and expressed hope that this becomes a trend or expectation. Ladsous refuses to answer Press questions, video here - but even Jeff Feltman, back today from Ukraine, is said not to plan any press availability. Why not?

  The first question was given to Pamela Falk of CBS as head of the old UN Correspondents Association, which rather than push for example for Ladsous to have to answer has in fact come to his defense, grilling Inner City Press about an article about Ladsous until Inner City Press quit UNCA (and co-founded FUNCA).

  Now, will Falk with this automatic first question get a story about South Sudan onto CBS? If not, and even leaving aside UNCA becoming the UN's Censorship Alliance, how is this automatic first question justified?

  Having been given the first question, she left the briefing room while others were still waiting to ask. There wa a scheduled stakeout by the UN's Lebanon envoy Plumbley, which Inner City Press and others interested had to miss. UNmiss.

  Inner City Press also asked Ging about Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile; he said the UN still has no access to opposition held areas. He cited Jebel Marra in Darfur. Ladsous, in Pakistan, was quoted that the UNAMID mission in Darfur will shrink.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about it and was told that if Pakistan's number of troops goes does, something will be said. But that wasn't the question. And while Ladsous was reportedly seeking women police and peacekeepers in Pakistan, when a woman who served in UNAMID in Darfur was disciplined for it, UN Peacekeeping has no comment, and has it seemed done nothing. UNmiss.

  The briefing ended with Ms Haque saying that more important than "donor fatigue" is the fatigue of children without food in South Sudan. Now that, is true. Watch this site.

   

On CAR, US Samantha Power on Replacing Chad, FM on SOFA, France's Gerard Araud Stonewalls

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 10 -- After the UN Security Council adopted itsCentral African Republic peacekeeping mission resolution 15-0 on April 10, Inner City Press put questions to US Ambassador Samantha Power, French Ambassador Gerard Araud and CAR's foreign minister Toussaint Kongo Doudou.

   Since France "has the pen" on CAR, as it does on Burundi, Araud went first. Inner City Press asked him what the plans are to replace the 850 peacekeepers Chad is withdrawing after being charged with killing 30 civilians in Bangui.

  Araud said, "Ask Chad's Ambassador." (Inner City Press did ask him questions on March 7, below, but he did not come to the stakeout on April 10.)

  When Ambassador Power came out, as well as a question on Burundi which we'll separately report, Inner City Press asked her the same question, about plans now that the Chadians are pulling out.

  Ambassador Power acknowledged that the Chadian troops had given "solace" to the remaining Muslims in CAR. She said troops from Cameroon and France - imagine that - are trying to replace them, but that others will have to be recruited. We will link to her full response when it goes online.

  Foreign Minister Toussaint Kongo Doudou spoke in English, saying security must be restored. Inner City Press raised what Navi Pillay answered on April 8, that 80% of Muslims in CAR have been forcibly displaced (video here) and asked if the government will try to guarantee that the Muslims chased out of the country can return. Yes, he said, CAR is their country, but first security must be restored.

  Inner City Press asked him if CAR has jurisdiction over the Chadian unit charged with killing 30 civilians. He said they were part of the African Union MISCA force. But, Inner City Press asked, other say they were Special Forces there to help evacuate Muslims. Was there a Status of Forces Agreement between them and CAR? 

  Toussaint Kongo Doudou repeated that the Chadians were part of a "framework." We'll see.

Thirty days but many news cycles ago on March 7 when Chad's Permanent Representative to the UN Mahamat Zene Cherif came to the Security Council stakeout, beyond asking him about child soldiers Inner City Press asked him about those who have had to flee Central African Republic into Chad. Shouldn't they be able to return to CAR? Video hereand embedded below

Mahamat Zene Cherif said while Chad will not force anyone back, they should be able to return. He said that eighty percent of the Muslims have been chased out of the CAR.

How can elections be held this way, he asked.

Inner City Press asked if perhaps those displaced could vote even while in Chad. Mahamat Zene Cherif said the UN could check the feasibility, but that Chad would hope the displaced could return to CAR.

  The day before, Inner City Press tried to ask French Ambassador Gerard Araud about a statement or report by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay that the French Sangaris force first disarming the ex-Seleka had left Muslim community vulnerable to attack by Christian anti-Balaka militias.

  Araud refused to take the question while at the microphone, then from the wings insisted there is no Navi Pillay report. Click here for that.

  What forces allowed 80% of the Muslims in CAR to be chased out? And what responsibility do they bear? Watch this site.

   

Even After Haiti Cholera, UN Won't Answer If Has Any Claims Commissions, Nor Give List of High Officials

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 14 -- At Thursday's UN noon briefing, simple questions were asked but were not answered. Referring to the Haiti cholera lawsuit against the UN, Inner City Press asked if any UN Peacekeeping mission has in fact established one of the Standing Claims Commissions provided for in their Status of Forces Agreements.

  UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said that actually setting these up depends on the request of the mission's host government. But that not only ignores the power relations, it does not answer the yes or no question: has any Standing Claims Commissions been set up?

  Haq referred to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. But its chief Herve Ladsous has refused to answer basic Press questions, such as about the 135 rapes at Minova by DPKO's partners in the Congolese Army. Video here, UK coverage here. So when will this simple question be answered?

  Likewise, Haq was asked for a comprehensive list of UN Under Secretaries Generals and Assistant Secretaries General. He said these are announced. But Inner City Press asked, what about long-standing, part-time officials? Where is the list?

  As a follow up, Inner City Press asked Haq for the UN Secretariat's response to criticism of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeking to move his close associate Robert Orr from an ASG position funded by used portions of other empty budget lines to a new USG position, while seeking cuts elsewhere.

  Haq didn't provide a defense of this, other than saying that any new position is up to the General Assembly and if created would be recruited for in an open and transparent process. An example of why some doubt that is the refusal to answer simple questions like: does any DPKO Peacekeeping Mission have a Standing Claims Commission? That should be answered.

Footnote: after Inner City Press asked about Haiti cholera, including Stephen Lewis' statement that the UN should admit responsibility and try to make victims whole, Pamela Falk the president of UNCA, now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, jumped onto the topic in essence to help the UN out.

  She said that Haq has been open, and raised a reason why the UN might still not be screening peacekeepers for cholera before deployment: the World Health Organization. What was the purpose of such a question? Especially after when the UN mis-answered Inner City Press' first question on this, saying that the UN does not screen, then admitted that it doesn't only when Inner City Press asked again. Open? Keep an eye out for that hard-hitting coverage -- not.

   

On UN Cholera, Lawsuits Eyed in Haiti, US & Europe, Victims' Lawyer Tells Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 21 – After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman announced Thursday that the claim the UN introduced cholera into Haiti was “not receivable,” Inner City Press asked him and then one of the claimants' lawyers questions about the ruling. Video here from Minute 10.

  Beatrice Lindstrom of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, which filed the claim in November 2011, told Inner City Press that “it's disgraceful that the UN has taken 15 months to find it not receivable.”

  She said, “this does not mark the end... We will proceed. We are preparing a domestic lawsuit and we'll file.”

  Inner City Press asked, in Haiti?

   Lindstrom said, “In Haiti, in the United States and in Europe.”

   What would the legal theory be for filing in Europe, Inner City Press asked.

   There's “a lot of jurisprudence there protecting victims' rights to a remedy... The UN is not prepared to provide,” Lindstrom told Inner City Press. “Several courts say this does not comport with human rights law and set aside immunity.”

   Inner City Press asked if IJDH had any notice or inkling that the UN would announce its dismissal today, after 15 months.

   No, Lindstrom said, “We did not know it was forthcoming, there's been no communication from the UN since in December 2011 when they acknowledged receipt.”

   Inner City Press asked if the UN mission, MINUSTAH, ever set up the Standing Claims Committee specified in its Status of Forces Agreement with Haiti.

   Lindstrom said, “they committed in the Status of Forces Agreement but never did it in practice to our know or anywhere in world where there is a peacekeeping operation.”

   Again Inner City Press asked about the legal theory to sue in Europe, for the UN bringing cholera to Haiti and killing some 7000 Haitians.

   Lindstrom said, "we're working with victims from all over the world, that's one way to get jurisdiction... There's also jurisdiction on a legal level, over the UN in light of its immunity... if the Organization is trying to defend based on immunity, it can be enough to get the case kicked up” for review of if it's legal “for the domestic court to uphold immunity.”

   With Ban Ki-moon's top lawyer Patricia O'Brien, who refused requests from Inner City Press and then the Free UN Coalition for Access to take question on cholera in Haiti, about to leave to represent Ireland at the UN in Geneva, and Ban heading out on a trip, they may think it's over. 

   But it does not sound like it's over. Watch this site.

Forward-looking footnote:  Inner City Press has also asked the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous what safeguards if any he's implemented to avoid spreading cholera elsewhere. 

  Ladsous refused to answer, then after FUNCA protested,on February 6 purported to answer Inner City Press on cholera - with no reference to safeguards. This continued, this week, in the UN Special Committee on Peacekeeping. 

  Could Ladsous' defiance trigger or require litigation and a restraining order? Watch this site.

From the February 21, 2013 UN noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask you a question about the Haiti announcement you made, when you say it is not receivable, what is the legal argument? Was a Standing Claims Commission, as required by the status-of-forces agreement, established? It makes it sound like it is a legal determination, but is there going to be some kind of a memo? What’s the basis? What took so long, and “not receivable” in what way? It was received. Is it basically a claim of immunity by the UN? Can you say more about what this “not receivable” means?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, I am not in a position to provide you with any details. It’s not the United Nations practice to discuss in public the details of and the response to claims filed against the Organization. Let me also say I can confirm that we have informed counsel for the claimants that the claims are not receivable. Consideration of the claims would necessarily involve a review of political and policy matters. Accordingly, the claims are not receivable, pursuant to Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which was adopted by the General Assembly on 13 February 1946. Just to answer your question about the time taken: we gave serious consideration to the matter, and took the time necessary to properly review the various claims raised in all their aspects.

Amid Syria Failure, UN Demands Deletion of its Official's Name, Questions Sources

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- Amid charges from all sides that the UN's and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's activities in Syria are a failure, the UN's response on Thursday was to seek to censor press coverage of differing description of an upcoming UN trip to Damascus, then to question its sources.

  As Inner City Press reported yesterday -- and modifies at the UN's request in this version -- on May 16 a Security Council Permanent Representative told the press that 

 

"in the coming days Jean-Marie 'Guehenno and DPKO,' the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, will go to Damascus, on the political track, with it was hoped Kofi Annan to follow. Later on May 16, Inner City Press was informed that the request was made [deleted at UN's request] on the issue of the observers, not the political track."

More than 12 hours later came this from DPKO's spokesman Kieran Dwyer, copying Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky:

Date: Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:46 AM

I have become aware of you[r] web article and tweets naming [individual's name included in DPKO's email, but deleted here] as planning to travel to syria along with dpko colleaugues. Your decision to publish this information in advance of a trip has created a potentially serious security situation for un personnel. I ask that you remove all such references from the inner city press website without delay, for the sake of the safety and security of un peacekeeping personnel.

  For the UN to request post-publication removal from the Internet of information, stated on the record by a Security Council's Permanent Representative, seems to implicate freedom of the press issues which seem not to be the UN's priority under Ban Ki-moon. 

  But within minutes of receiving the above, Inner City Press modified the story, removing the name and an included critique of the individual specified in DPKO's removal request, then replied that the Permanent Representative 

 

"yesterday morning on the record stated that Jean Marie Guehenno and DPKO were going to Damascus. Subsequent reporting found that the request was for Mr. Ladsous plus three. If you have a problem with names, you need to speak to Permanent Representatives, including among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council... I'm still waiting for the promised answer beyond Entebbe of DPKO's use of private military and security firms, and for the UN casualty estimate at Pibor. Please advise. I have immediately removed references in this article to Mr. Ladsous, which seems to be your major concern."

   Significantly, DPKO did not request the deletion of Jean-Marie Guehenno's name. The name it requested delation of it gave, obviously, to the Syrian government. So from where does the claimed danger come?

    Even with this change, the UN Peacekeeping spokesman persisted, now inquiring into what Inner City Press' "subsequent reporting" consisted of:

"Thank you for removing the name. However much of the damage has in fact been done already. I am very concerned that Inner City Press seems to wash its hands of responsibility for what it chooses to publish. By Inner City Press's own reporting, [the] Ambassador [misnamed by DPKO] did not appear to have named DPKO names. I do not know what you mean by 'subsequent reporting,' and given the lack of other reports I can only assume you mean your own decision to publish Mr [X's] name. The problem that I have is with the ramifications for UN peacekeeping personnel safety and security, and with Inner City Press's decision to publish in complete disregard for these matters. Your response below indicates a continued blithe recklessness with regard to the safety and security of UN personnel operating in highly volatile circumstances."

  In fact, while Inner City Press immediately made the deletions requested by DPKO despite their seeming basis in removing a single individual from the public eye, DPKO has for six months promised to sign a Status of Forces Agreement for the peacekeepers in Abyei, four of whom bled out and died due to slow med-evac due to the lack of a SOFA. No explanation has been provided, including after another request on Thursday.

  At Thursday's noon briefing, while deliberately as requested not using any individual's name, even that provided on the record by a Security Council Permanent Representative, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon spokesman Martin Nesirky to clarify if this visit to Damascus is about the political track, or only about observers.

  Nesirky refused to answer this, cloaking the entire question in an invocation of safety and accusing the previous publication as being "unacceptable." Inner City Press said it disagrees 100% with the attempt at censorship of information stated on the record by UN member states' Permanent Representatives, then asked on the issue of actual safety the question of why despite the public statement six months ago still no SOFA was in place for the peacekeepers in Abyei. Nesirky said when he has something he will say. 

  Notably, under Nesirky the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General was thrown out of the Security Council and lost previous access. Perhaps this is why they cannot control what Council Permanent Representatives say on the record, but then seek to censor the subsequent press coverage. 

  The response to censorship is, in this case, a description of the attempt at censorship, while accomodating the stated but not explained pretext for the attempt at censorship. Watch this site.