UNITED NATIONS GATE, April 17 – How corrupt is the UN under Secretary General Antonio Guterres? After banned Inner City Press exclusively published a second complaint concerning abuse including of DSA (Daily Subsistence Allowance) by the director of UN Women's regional office of East and Southern Africa, Ms Izeduwa Derex Briggs, we have received more complaints from whistleblowers, continued impunity in UN Women and elsewhere under Guterres despite exposure of blatant corruption.
Now in mid April, this: "in November 2018, Ms Izeduwa publicly made known to the staff that regardless of the grave allegations against her, she will remain the Regional Director of the Office and that she is there to stay due to her connection within the UN hierarchy. Further she coerced some staff including but not limited to those aligned to her to draft a signed statement disassociating themselves from the earlier statement strongly placing her at the centre of mismanagement, abuse of authority, staff intimidation and leadership crisis in UN Women East and Southern Africa Regional Office. As if this is not enough, and in the backdrop of the allegations on the staff first statement, Ms Izeduwa- the Regional Director in an attempt to exhibit contempt on any potential investigative proceedings, has proceeded to recruit an auditor whose brief is specific, precise and unambiguous: to undertake creative accounting in the run up to any potential investigative processes. One Mr. Zachariah Nyakoe – Zachariah.nyakoe@unwomen.org who has previously assisted Ms Izeduwa evade audit queries while in her former work station in Sudan, has been employing the same skills here at the regional office-summoning staff and intimidating them with an intent to have the staff withhold any truth related to any investigative processes. His scope of work is limited to reviewing only files related to the allegations against Ms Izeduwa. In exercise of the imagined authority from Ms Izeduwa, Zachariah Nyakoe has been summoning all staff who play a particular role on the issues touching on Ms Izeduwa, majority of which are travel files, consulting files and partnership files in bid to coach them and give false testimonies to OIOS if at all they invite these staff. Without mentioning that Zachariah Nyakoe has been under the UN Women ESARO payroll since January 2019, the same has been met with utter shock as the recent ejection from the UN Women Nairobi Regional Office and the deactivation of his emails intimate as much-a rogue auditor!
In February 2019, Ms Izeduwa in complete disregard of the existing policies and the Secretary General’s guidelines on what comprises of eminent persons, she defiantly and adamantly ordered the Procurement Officer to book 25 traditional leaders, majority of whom were from Nigeria, on business class tickets to the AU in Addis Ababa attending the launch of the council of traditional leaders thereby making the UN Women East and Southern Africa lose USD 86000 while the rest of the leaders (None Nigerians) 41 of them traveled on economy class. Despite the Director- Management and Administration Division based at the HQ in New York disapproving the use of the business class tickets in line with the travel policy, Ms Izeduwa still proceeded to have the same issued, perhaps motivated by the fact that they are all Nigerians- a country of her origin. While at it, and in continuation of the abuse of power on the part of the now besieged Regional Director, the traditional leaders in their capacities as participants, were given full Daily Subsistence Allowances- Full DSAs and acting in ignorance as to what amounts to full DSAs, they were provided with lunch packages and the same was billed to UN Women. In yet another intriguing event, Ms Izeduwa hired Four (4) consultants to oversee the meeting in Addis Ababa notwithstanding that there were Eleven (11) Staff members flown from Nairobi to Addis Ababa in yet another city where there is a Country Office: - all this was not meaningful as it ended up plundering UN Women resources as these are roles that could be carried out by the country office in providing the logistical and technical support to the mission. On a comparative basis, the first meeting of traditional leaders on ending child marriage and FGM was held in Nairobi in August 13-17 2018 and was attended by 77 participants whose logistical and technical support was excellently provided by only 4 UN Women staff members, on the contrary this one was attended by 56 participants yet 4 consultants, 11 Staff from Nairobi and a number of staff from the Country Office presided over. In essence, the number of staff participating and supporting the event was slightly under 50% of the number of total participants. In order to perfect her retaliation tendencies on staff who she accuses of having reported her for investigations, she has recently pushed for a HR Business Partner-Ms Tamara Cummings-John who was previously the Global Workplace Relations Advisor at UN Women HQ to join the regional office as a HR Business Partner. Ms Tamara Cummings- John is married to Mr. Darren Peters (Operations Manager UN- Women Sudan Country Office). Staff do not trust the new HR Business Partner and would prefer reporting any HR related issues to HQ and other platforms as she has a long standing history of supporting management at the detriment of staff. Madam Executive Director, you should note with great concerns that you have placed the lives of your staff in the hands of a Partner who is not a HR Specialist and has only been a Legal Officer in the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Office of Legal Affairs, as well as working in both the office of the prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Courts for Sierra Leone. Madam Executive Director this previous positions do not in any way give her enlightenment as far as HR is concerned. As a specialist of Human Rights, Ms Tamara has ZERO experience in Human Resource Management and does not understand the fundamental principles of Human Resource Management. Instead, Ms Tamara is in cohorts with Ms Izeduwa, to partner with her in order for her to clean up Ms Izeduwa’s mess. Ms Tamara has adopted a radical, unprofessional and intimidating approach to staff marked by Ms Izeduwa as witnesses of the investigation process against her and has been the guiding princess for Ms Izeduwa on how to handle any investigations process including the recent internal auditor hired to undertake creative accounting for Ms Izeduwa. To show the collusion, Mr Darren Peters was recruited by Ms Izeduwa who is a close ally of Ms Tamara and who in turn ensured that Ms Tamara is transferred from UN Women HQ to UN Women Regional Office for East and Southern Africa. Madam Executive Director are you confident that 3 your staff are safe in such hands? We request that you protect whistle blowers and staff who continue to suffer in the hands of Ms Izeduwa who has planted lieutenants to intimidate staff as a way of indirect retaliation strategy. The last thing we want to report is on haphazard, misguided and mismanaged recruitment of staff amidst budgetary challenges. This year, Ms Izeduwa has allocated USD 300000 solely for her travels and missions. She has instructed all thematic units that there is no programme funds and that only USD 300000 is available for programming-an amount equivalent to her travel allocation for 2019! The cause of the programming challenge being a bloated organogram- caused by the recruitment of consultants amidst the existence of the staff. While Ms Izeduwa has continued to muzzle staff, she continues to order for recruitment of duplicate roles and positions which continue to engrave the funding crisis. Her intention is to create a situation for another functional analysis-we did one in 2016-when she just joined. She intentions to use the functional analysis to eliminate all staff who she perceives as key witnesses of her investigation process. Madam Executive Director, in the midst of the unregulated hiring of consultants by the Regional Director, some staff have openly complained of lack of workloads and that they left well meaningful jobs only to be allocated very minor duties-like photocopying, filling in travel authorizations and documents or completing and filling in F10 forms for Advisors-which are not in line with the terms of refences to which they applied for. Yet, Ms Izeduwa continues to recruit with directions on who to recruit for what position. In the worst instance, staff have been summoned and asked what they are doing at UN Women and how they came to UN Women. In fact, some staff have been asked to identify their proper placement in the organogram. These are reflections of a failed leadership. On the issue of office typology, we encourage HQ to employ impartial approaches that will not harm staff but will ensure that the fundamental principles of UN policies are upheld. This includes the order of retention policies, appropriate compensatory policies, adequate consultations with staff and the Joint Staff Association, among other best work place practices. With the blessing of a new Deputy Regional Director, whom staff continue to have confidence in, the office continues to run without Ms Izeduwa who continues with her airflow missions. We request you Madam Executive Director to give a conclusive guidance on the office to reactivate the confidence and motivation of staff. The JSA, who continue to support staff, had indicated to us that you will institute an internal review on the conduct of Ms Izeduwa. To date, we have not received any single indication of the review. Ms Izeduwa continues to boast of her closer relationship with your office at the detriment of staff who are demotivated and paying for the price of absent leadership, abuse of authority, misadvised expenditures and recruitment processes, staff intimidation admitted through conduits planted by Ms Izeduwa, retaliation on staff through contractual threats, dysfunctional senior management team dominated by Ms Izeduwa and allies and dictatorial management. We have been patient Madam Executive Director. But we need answers! Yours, Concerned Staff Members."
UNITED NATIONS, March 10 -- Amid a litany of rape charges against UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press exclusively obtained and on February 12 published UN emails showing another round of sexual abuse of minors in Ouaka prefecture in the Central African Republic by UN Peacekeepers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here to view.
On March 4 at 11 am Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on "Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse" came out from under embargo and Inner City Press immediately published this review.
On March 10, Ban presented his report to the UN Security Council, followed by Council members' speeches. Ladsous attended - refusing Inner City Press' question about Code Blue's critique on the way in -- and left even as China was speaking.
Later at the March 10 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the director of UN Women Phumzile Mlambo, not for the first time, for her response to Ladsous having publicly linked the rapes to R&R. She replied that she remembered the Press question, but hadn't been able to "corroborate" it.
"Watch your Twitter feed," Inner City Press said, and send her (and Brazil's Permanent Representative Patriota) the video link.
Spain in the debate said that countries should have six months to take action. So how long has French taken on the Sangaris rapes? Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric for his view. He said the French process is ongoing. For how long?
We'll have more on the question of whether the draft Security Council resolution should also address Sangaris, and for example the French Force Licorne in Cote d'Ivoire. Inner City Press asked Brazil's Patriota if the issue should be in the General Assembly as well. He said yes, citing Jose Ramos Horta -- who has chimed in to the UN against its ouster of Inner City Press, so far without it being reversed. Now we can say: Ban knows. Personally.
On March 4 at the 11:15 am press conference -- tellingly, the UN Correspondents Association wasn't present - Inner City Press asked Khare why it wasn't Ladsous presenting, why Ban Ki-moon noted without criticism a mere nine day suspension for sexual exploitation, why sexual abuse of a 14 year old was classified by the UN as "transactional"?
Khare did not explain Ladsous' absence, nor answer if Ladsous was the unnamed UN official who pre-spun Reuters and a few others.
He did not directly say that Reuters broke the embargo - he said to ask DPI about that , which is funny in that DPI threw Inner City Press out of the UN for trying to cover an event in this same UN Press Briefing Room, while collaborating with Reuters - but added he was surprised to see the advance story. Video here.
There is no accountability at the top - or in the field. The March 4 report in Paragraph 20 presents as legitimate a nine day suspension for sexual exploitation, and undefined "administrative sanctions" for sexual exploitation that led to a "Peacekeeper baby." This is shameful.
Zeid firing whistleblower Kompass was asking about by France 24 - but not Ladsous.
As to the Central African Republic, where the UN covered up French Sangaris troops child rapes and then fired the whistleblower -- not mentioned in the report -- the UN blamed the victims, saying the country is poor, women and girls are for sale: a more diplomatic entree into what Ladsous came out and said on September 11, 2015, linking rapes to R&R.
Combine this with an Inner City Press question Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric refused to answer - how could the UN log in sexual abuse of a 14 year old, statutory rape, as "transactional" sex -- and the scam of Ban's response becomes clear.
Perhaps because the product is so worthless, the attempt to sell and spin it was extensive.
Since December Inner City Press has asked at noon briefings when Ban Ki-moon's response to the Deschamps report would be released, including asking about member state dissatisfaction with the response, and Ladsous. "March," Ban's two spokesman said.
On Wednesday Inner City Press learned that not the official responsible for the rapes, Herve Ladsous, but lower profile Atul Khare had shot a UN TV "interview" about the response. Now, in similar propaganda fashion, an UNnamed UN official has poured the spin on Reuters and the old "small group of reporters" -- that is, those who never reported that Ladsous, on camera, linked the rapes to R&R. This is the UN Corruption Association.
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about DPKO. I've seen a story in which an unnamed UN peacekeeping official has, I guess, previewed what Mr. Khare is going to say on Friday, and he talks about possible court-martials and even DNA testing. And I guess… first, I wanted to ask, who was he? And the reason I ask is, if you're talking about name and shame, why would DPKO be presenting its information anonymously?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Matthew, the background briefings that are provided are background briefings. You know that we have background briefings. You've attended them. And I will abide by the rules of them.
Inner City Press: Did Mr. Atul Khare conduct already, on Wednesday of this week, a sit-down interview with UNTV? And, if so, when will it be released? And why would… is this actually a publicity campaign to promote belated response to the rapes in the CAR [Central African Republic]? Or can we see the video now? Is it under embargo? I would like to know what the rules of that.
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Different UN officials do, in fact, talk to UNTV, and that's part of what we do in order to actually communicate the work of the United Nations. There's nothing untoward about that. And it will air at some point fairly soon, I believe. But, ultimately, it becomes public when it does. You'll be able to see it on the website, as anyone else.
But, even as to the report which the UN insisted was under embargo until 11 am on March 4, when Reuters nevertheless published a weak story about it on March 3, with no mention of Ladsous, the UN did nothing.
Given the UN's no due process move to on February 19 expel Inner City Press from the UN for merely trying to cover an event in the UN Press Briefing Room on January 29, petition here, Inner City Press strictly complied with the embargo although obtaining the report through other channels was easy.
Reuters doesn't have to worry about the UN throwing it out - it does (some in) the UN's dirty work. We'll have more on this as well.
Even from within DPKO there is disgust at the response, as dodging or not implement many of the recommendations. More on that when the UN belatedly comes out from behind its self-pleasuring curtain of its own media, and insider scribes. One final note: the Reuters bureau chief at the March 1 press conference by Angola on its Program of work loudly cut off another reporter - not this one -- as if owning the UN. After Inner City Press on February 15 asked about the email its had published - and Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, notably,tried to dismiss and then stole the story - on February 16 UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq in the noon briefing read out a statement confirming nearly all of the email Inner City Press had published: that there were four new victims, minors, troops from DR Congo.
But Haq did not say that two of the victims had children from the statutory rape. So Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm that, and asked who would pay: the UN or the DRC soldiers? Haq said there are meetings in Ban's office to respond to just such issues, after December's Deschamps report. Video here.
And then Reuters, even while its editor Dan Grebler said the first theft was being looked into, just retyped and stole it again, this time by its UN correspondent Michelle Nichols, here.
It was this same Nichols who, at the UN Security Council stakeout on February 18 while Inner City Press was live-streaming after asking about a draft statement on Palestine, cut in loudly with "I see you Periscoping!" And? So what? UN missions and the UN itself are broadcasting inside the UN on Periscope. Why would one media try to censor others?
So Inner City Press raised the issue of theft of exclusives (and lack of objectivity, at least at the UN) to Reuters itself. For now, we've received this, cc-ed also not only to the (repeat) offender but also to Reuters' genial seeming Brian Moss and Clive McKeef:
"Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The appropriate Reuters staff will look into it and get back to you as soon as feasible.
Regards, Dan Grebler Desk Editor, Americas Desk"
But but February 18, still no response. It's not that complicated. Or was the Reuters correspondent's "intervention" the response? We'll have more on this too.
The underlying emails, dated February 11, 2016, describe at least four underage victims, two of whom were impregnated by the rapist UN peacekeepers -- "in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture."
On February 15, after emailing questions for two days to UN spokespeople in CAR and New York, Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the rapes, and the email it published on February 12. Haq answered, dodging on part of the email but not denying it. Video here.
Then Associated Press asked, what about these new allegations? Video here. Haq answered - and from that, AP wrote its own derivative and belated story -- without credit, and without any mention of the critique of the UN in the emails. This is how it works, or doesn't.
This too - Reuters UN "bureau chief" on Monday evening first reflexively came to the UN's defense saying that "Alleged Central African Republic rapes UN spox talked about today are same ones UN CAR said Feb 4 it was probing," citing (what else) a Reuters story of February 4 -- about a Human Rights Watch report about rapes in Bambari. But read the February 11 emails Inner City Press exclusively published, here:
“Herewith sharing with you a report I have just received from UNICEF indicating four minor girls aged between 16 and 17 years were victims of sexual exploitation and abuse allegedly committed by members of the DRC battalion in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture.”
Up the email chain, Mercedes Gervilla in UN headquarters writes that “it would seem that many among the troops concerned, including Commanding officers were well aware of the abuse to which these children were being subjected. I also regret to inform you that in addition to these new 4 cases, there will likely be two more...”. [We'll have more on this.]
And there is a history: this same Reuters UN Bureau Chief Lou Charbonneau, when challenged, wrote to Stephane Dujarric, UN Spokesman, trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, here.
When this was exposed, Charbonneau cited Reuters to get his email to the UN taken out of Google's search, saying he never meant for it to be public and it was somehow copyrighted. (See his filing here, made public by EFF's ChillingEffects.org). That's censorship... by Reuters.
This this case, after being shown this reflexive defense of the UN was wrong, Reuters simply re-wrote the story and stole it, with no credit.
And now we must go back: Charbonneau announced a policy of not crediting Inner City Press, see here.
This was raised at the time to Reuters, including to Stephen J. Adler. What kind of company is this?
(Inner City Press previously asked the decaying UN Correspondents Association, while it tried to censor Press coverage of its boss, to promulgate a best practice for media at the UN to credit others' exclusives; it never happened. AP at the UN speaks for this UNCA, and apparently it for AP.)
In the email chain Inner City Press exclusively published, middle management at the UN noted that the majority of sexual abuse in CAR has been committed by the battalions from the DRC and the Republic of Congo. And so Inner City Press posed these questions to UN spokespeople in both New York and the CAR:
"This is a request for your comment on, and any update on, the sexual abuse and exploitation cases in the Feb 11, 2016 emails now here
Also, what will be done with the Republic of Congo and DR Congo contingents? We are interested in if the UN and DPKO can, as currently be configured, be reformed.What is the status of the sexual abuse and exploitation cases that have been listed, including in the UN Press Briefing Room?"
The response received by Inner City Press on Saturday afternoon in New York was from Bangui-based MINUSCA spokesman Vladimir Monteiro:
"Regarding your questions on DRC and Congo, here is Minusca's position:
"On DRC contingent, a decision to repatriate them has already been taken. It will be completed without delay by the end of the month. It is just a matter of planning it properly.
"On the 120 troops from Congo, they have been cantoned in Berberati to permit investigations by national investigators before their repatriation to their country which will occur on 20 February 2016. For further details on this matter please contact HQ."
But of course Inner City Press has already contacted "HQ" or UN Headquarters, including for example Ismini Palla of Ladsous' DPKO, who gave Agence France Presse the response to questions Inner City Press has publicly posed to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, to the DPKO spokesman Nick Birnback, also cc-ed.
So where ARE the updates on the cases the UN's Diane Corner listed in the UN Briefing Room? Why was it reported in early January that the DRC contingent had "been dismissed" when, in mid February, they are still in place? What is the status of the Burundian contingent in CAR? Follow up questions have been submitted to UN officials and spokespeople in CAR and headquarters in New York.
Well placed sources tell Inner City Press these two countries' soldiers have been in the UN MINUSCA mission nearly entirely due to Ladsous and, more outrageously, the / his French government due to its political relations with the Republic of Congo and DRC.
Ladsous, as Inner City Press has reported, told Burundi's Vice President that he is "pragmatic" about human rights; even on camera, Ladsous linked the rapes to "R&R," click here for video.
While Ladsous' DPKO and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson announced that the DRC contingent would be pulled out of Bambari and CAR in late Janaury, Inner City Press is informed this never happened: they are still there.
Ladsous' DPKO, and now the UN Spokesperson's Office, are engaged in misleading the press and public, and doling out what information they provide to only the friendliest media.
For recent example, Inner City Press for week has reported on and asked about the repatriation from CAR of Burundian troops charged with abuse during the crackdown on opponents of Pierre Nkurunziza's third term. Even after Inner City Press obtained and published on February 9 proof of three repatriations, all UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press is that he would seek an update.
Simarily, Ladsous' lead spokesman Nick Birnback told Inner City Press DPKO would have something to say about the particular Burundian officers in CAR Inner City Press asked him about.
Then Ladsous' spokespeople including Ismini Palla gave their limited confirmations to Reuters and Agence France Presse, who published it without credit or context. (Neither media reported on Ladsous linking rape to R&R - nor did AP.)
In a February email by UN official Anthony Banbury, soon to leave the UN after some heartfelt tears of outrage at peacekeepers' rapes, it is said:
"We have a pack of predatory criminals and rapists, preying on young girls, under the banner of the United Nations. How can we stand by? In my view that battalion should be ordered to cease operations today, same with the RoC battalion, and be confined to camp and guarded full time so they cannot continue to abuse children. While we would pay a short-term price in terms of operations, we would gain so much in terms of the integrity and reputation of the UN, in the CAR and internationally, and we would almost certainly prevent more rapes of minor girls. We simply cannot sustain the argument that the benefit these troops are bringing to the UN and PoC is greater than the harm they are doing."
What will the UN do? What will France, with new foreign minister Jean Marc Ayrault, do? How long can Ladsous - and the Congolese contingents - remain in place?
Having been told by sources of more rapes by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, Inner City Press on January 26 reported them and on January 27 asked the UN's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric to confirm them - but he wouldn't. UN transcript here. Video here.
So what is the protocol of UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, who linked the rapes to "R&R," here? How many more do they know about?
The UN report on rapes in the Central African Republic, released on December 17, found that UN Peacekeeping's Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous “illustrate[s] the UN's failure to respond to allegations of serious human rights violations in the meaningful way.”
Ladsous has yet to take any questions about the report...
When the Panel's three members held their December press conference, Inner City Press asked about Ladsous' failure to vet and his linking of rapes to “R&R.” Video here. Marie Deschamps said pointedly she wouldn't comment on Ladsous' remarks; Yasmin Sooka said these are crimes for punishment, not recreation.
As the last question, Inner City Press asked what it had wanted to ask Ban, and tried to ask Dujarric: what does this say about Ban's management? Video of Q&A here. Didn't Ban's chief of staff Malcorra, criticized in the report, do it for Ban? Didn't the “senior official” who ostensibly let the rape information die on the vine in the 38th floor work in an atmosphere created by Ban's nine years? We will pursue this.
In December 2015, Ban allowed those who cover him, at least the UN Correspondents Association, to sell seats with him for $6,000. And it is these same who have airbrushed out Ladsous and others. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, November 23 -- How new is new media? “Women's relative invisibility in traditional news media has crossed over into digital news delivery platforms,” a UN Women press conference diagnosed on November 23. Inner City Press asked the panelists how they measured this, with Twitter; one wondered if they considered Snapchat, for example, as a digital news delivery platform, given how people watched the US presidential debates over it.
The underlying study was by WACC, which turns out in the footnotes to stand for World Association for Christian Communication. Inner City Press asked if that doesn't present a problem in some parts of the work, for example the Middle East. The panel, included Nanette Braun and Karin Achtelstetter, answered that their polling showed it doesn't. Perhaps one hears what one wants to hear.
The conclusion on new media being like the old, however, resonates. How different is the coverage of US foreign policy by the celebrated, or corporate, new media platforms?
How could the UN and its Security Council be better covered and informed by social media? Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft this question on Septembe 23, not in the UN but a dozen blocks away at a Digital Diplomacy / “Soft Power” event by Facebook and Portland Communications. #Periscope video here.
Rycroft told Inner City Press that the best Security Council meetings he's been in have allowed in outside voices; he noted it is still not the custom to tweet from inside consultations, though perhaps it should be.
Inner City Press asked the US State Department's Moira Whelan about US Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones quitting Twitter back in March, after one of her tweets about bombing of the Tawerga was attacked. Whelan said the State Department wants to support its diplomats when they come under fire; Rycroft said if a diplomat's intentions were good and well-considered, they should be supported even if things go wrong.
Facebook's Katie Harbath mentioned that India Prime Minister Modi would be meeting with Mark Zuckerberg; an hour later at the Indian delegation's press conference in the Waldorf Astoria's huge Empire room, there was confirmation of this and other tech meetings for Modi. (Inner City Press asked about UN Peacekeeping, whose chief Herve Ladsous recently linked UN rapes to “R&R” on video, here.)
UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- As the scandal unveiled in thecorruption charges against former UN General Assembly President John Ashe, Ng Lap Seng, Francis Lorenzo of South South News and others continues to expand, the compromised position of the UN Correspondents Association has come to the fore.
In 2011 until now, Inner City Press has exposed UNCA for taking funds from Ng Lap Seng vehicles, to which it gave awards, and arranging Ng Lap Seng photo op(s) with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. UNCA has not provided any explanation; the UN through Ban's spokesman has said for example that many people get photographs with Ban. But people like Ng previously found in US Senate reports to have made irregular campaign contributions, and co-owning hotels links to prostitution?
Ng Lap Seng was found to have brought the same bags of cash later deployed at the UN into the US earlier, in the late 90s, when his Fortuna hotel was linked to organized crime and even human trafficking. From the WSJ:
“Who is Ng Lap Seng, and what did he want? According to several well-informed sources in Hong Kong and Macau, Mr. Ng is a mysterious figure with extensive business in China, where he also held a minor post as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in his hometown of Nan Hai in Guangdong province. In Macau, his most visible interest is his ownership of the Fortuna Hotel, a garish high-rise in the gambling district, featuring a 20,000-square-foot nightclub with 'table dancing' by strippers, as well as a massage parlor and, according to its brochure, 'over 30 independent karaoke rooms, all luxuriously decorated with the most advanced sound system for any one interested in performing his favorite songs.' The brochure also boasts 'attractive and attentive hostesses from China, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Burma together with erotic girls from Europe and Russia, certainly offer you an exciting and unforgettable evening with friends or business associates.'”
So what does UN Women, which has still to comment on UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous linking rapes to “R&R,” same about Ban's UN (through UNCA) accepting “pimp and trafficker” Ng Lap Seng into the UN, and into UNCA's Cipriani ball for photos with Ban and his spouse? We'll have more on this.
Just as UNCA "leaders" from Voice of America and Reuters(censorship bid here) tried to use the UN to get the investigative Press out, now the UN responds to questions about UNCA selling Secretary General Ban Ki-moon photo ops to Ng Lap Seng by suggesting that the questioner, because present, "condoned" the sale.
Now, with UNCA still silent on its links with South South News and other Ng Lap Seng vehicles, here is video Inner City Press published in December 2011 of UNCA's murky photo ops for Ban at Cipriani, which UNCA seeks to reproduce this coming December.
Even then in December 2011, Inner City Press' accompanying story reported that it
"filmed what it could of the photo op -- those arranging it kept telling the Press it had to leave -- and afterward several in Ban's circle said they had no idea who the businessmen had been. There was dark talk about one David Ng, a businessman who has bankrolled 'vanity' media projects given awards that night -- people funded by Ng used the word "vanity," so we use it here."
Inner City Press published that in December 2011 about Ng and South South News; it quit UNCA and with another Executive Committee member who quit in disgust co-founded FUNCA, the Free UN Coalition for Access. UNCA continued taking funds from South South News. We'll have more on this.
While UNCA does not represent all journalists accredited to cover the UN -- Inner City Press for example quit the group in 2012 with another Executive Committee member and co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access -- the UN gives it a privileged position, a large clubhouse on the third floor of the UN and, automatically, the first question at press conferences.
But is that appropriate, given that UNCA received money from South South News, “NGO 1” in the filing against Ashe? Not only did UNCA receive money from South South News: it gave the group an “UNCA award” at a ceremony at the high-ceilinged Cipriani's restaurant on December 15, 2011.
Inner City Press, which did not quit UNCA in fully ripened disgust in 2012, was present in December 2011 and witnessed, when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came into Cipriani's, him being shepherded into a side room for photographs with Asian men in business suits who Inner City Press did not then recognize -- but now does.
UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked on October 13 about what it had seen, said perhaps Inner City Press had "condoned" it. Video here. But Inner City Press quit UNCA afterfinding conflicts of interest in it, and being "ordered" to not report on this. From the October 13 transcript:
Inner City Press: I want to ask inevitably about the revelations about Mr. [John] Ashe and Frank Lorenzo and others. And just as you… as the lead Spokesman, a person that travels around with the Secretary-General, how… what would you say to the photos that exist of the Secretary-General with David Ng, who was since indicted, and Frank Lorenzo and, particularly, in instances where it appears that groups that receive contributions from the two and then put them in a room to have photographs with the Secretary-General? Is this something that… how does the Secretary-General view this in retrospect, and what's going to be done in the future?
Spokesman: First of all, a photo of the Secretary-General with any individual should in no way be interpreted as a sponsorship or agreement. It's just a photo. The Secretary-General is very much a public figure, attends a lot of public events where there are a lot of people. Sometimes people come up to him and ask to have their photo taken. And it's done within the… within, obviously, the security constraints that need to be had. I think whether it's the Secretary-General of the United Nations or anyone in leadership position, you will find when you travel with them that a lot of people want to have their photo taken with them. Inasmuch as that is… we try to control that, sometimes it's difficult to do so. I think the Secretary-General is as shocked as anyone in this building at the charges that were levelled at these two individuals. And he's very disappointed at the accusations towards the United Nations.
Inner City Press: obviously, to business interests having an actual kind of formal handshaking one, I guess I'll just say that that is worth something to them. That's why they…
Spokesman: I'm not… I'm not debating that point… [cross talk] I'm just saying that having a picture of the Secretary-General with any individual should in no way be seen as a sponsorship, approval, making them BFF's or anything.
Inner City Press: I guess I just want to be more specific. If an event… and there's one that actually, as it turns out, I witnessed in Cipriani. If the Secretary-General enters a large space and is then taken to a smaller space for such photographs, what's the basis for that, as opposed to people with selfies? I mean, I understand what you're saying…
Spokesman: I think, you know, if you were there, then maybe you condoned the event as well. The issue is the Secretary-General attends a lot of events. Sometimes there is a VIP reception. None of it should be construed as anything as the Secretary-General having his picture taken with anyone.
Inner City Press: it's been a number of days now; I'm assuming that, if not you, OLA [Office of Legal Affairs], someone has read through this long FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] affidavit. And I want to just ask you again, because in it, it says that, after the… the… the official UN document about the Macau centre was procured, there was a separate payment to Mr. Ashe, separate communications with a UN official number one, who reissued the document as a… amended… revised for technical reasons, with the name of the company in it. And it seems to me, even before you waiting for an OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation, the scope of which wouldn't touch that, who in the UN is actually… how does it work, first of all? Who… which part of the UN amends documents after they're released? Is it DGACM [Department for General Assembly and Conference Management]…?
Spokesman: Listen, I'm not going to talk about the specifics of the case. But it is clear that if the President of one of the legislative bodies in this Organization which controls the agenda, or a sponsoring country for resolution, asks the Secretary-General to amend a text, we serve as the Secretariat. It's not… it's… it doesn't entail sponsoring of what's inside that text.
While Inner City Press' answer to the spokesman's "if you were there, then maybe you condoned the event as well," is that Inner City Press quit UNCA after finding conflicts of interest in it, and being "ordered" to not report on this, we'll have more on this.
On October 13, Inner City Press asked this follow up:
Inner City Press: I just want to directly ask you about the idea that it's sort of people struggling to get photos with the UN officials. There was a… there was a peacekeeping day concert that was… for which solicitation of… you know, sponsorship was sought by a group called World Harmony Alliance, and it had nothing… the group has nothing to do with peacekeeping, but they paid for day. They… they… in fact, the funder complained that he didn't get the promised photograph with Ban Ki-moon, but I wonder, what was… what's the UN's understanding when they take outside financial sponsorship for such a day? I mean, former UN official [Ibrahim] Gambari was seen with the same group taking photographs on the fourth floor in the Millennium Hotel. What's it all about? What’s happening?
Spokesman: What former officials do in hotels is really not of my purview.
Inner City Press: Sure. What about UN peacekeeping?
Spokesman: I would take a look at that actual programme, but I would expect every part of the UN to do due diligence when it partners with an outside organization. And just… I'll leave it at that.
On October 12, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, video here, transcript here:
Inner City Press: in light of these charges against John Ashe, Frank Lorenzo, and others, it's emerging that the Secretary-General, if not met, had staged photo opportunities with a number of the individuals charged. And I wanted to know, in looking at this, do you have some kind of a comment on how these occurred, particularly in instances where they may have been arranged by a third party, been arranged by an organization that invited Ban Ki-moon and then received funds from South-South News or others and then put the two together on photograph? Was that appropriate? And what would be your response to… to OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] looking at that or otherwise?
Deputy Spokesman: Well, regarding that, as you're aware, the Office of Internal Oversight Services will do an audit. They've been requested to do that, and so we'll be able to see whether there was any effect from either the relationship with these various groups, these two groups, the Sun Kian Ip Group and the Global Sustainability Foundation, and any of the monies received. So, we'll await what they have to say about any of this.
Inner City Press: But, given that Mr. Frank Lorenzo has been charged and he's now out on $2 million bail, he was head of South-South News, which spread $12 million, according to the documents, throughout the UN system. So, what was, how, what was the criteria used to choose these two NGOs and not either South-South News or International Organization for South-South Cooperation or South South Steering Committee on Sustainable Development? It seems like it's a very limited inquiry and…
Deputy Spokesman: It's not really an inquiry. It's an audit, and this is initial step. If OIOS feels like there is something… there's a direction which they need to go as a result of these initial results, they're certainly free to do that, but we needed to get the ball rolling and have an initial step forward so that we can look into what exactly is the impact of the monies and the relationship with these groups.
John Ashe at UNCA with former president, after and before Pioli click photo for source / credit
Back in December 2011, shepherding Ban for this (compensated) photo op with dubious businessmen was Giampaolo Pioli, then as now the president of UNCA. South South News interviewed Pioli that night, bragging of the UNCA award it got / paid for, screenshot from video here.
(For context it must be noted too that Pioli rented one of his Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona then granted Kohona's request as Sri Lanka's Ambassador to screen his government's war crimes denial film “Lies Agreed To” in the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium: this precipitated Inner City Press quitting UNCA, in full disclosure.)
How can UNCA be given first questions to ask about a scandal involving South South News, from which UNCA took more then to which it gave an award? And what are the other implications?
(In terms of Mr. Ng's desire for photo ops, Inner City Press is informed that he separately wanted a photo with US President Obama, and paid six figures to a middleman - who disappeared with the money. UNCA on the other hand, one wag noted, delivered Ban Ki-moon for photos at Cipriani's.)
UNCA, it should be noted, has been and is open to business interested beyond Mr. Ng and South South News. Another UNCA awards ceremony was sponsored by a company called “Acoona;” the Italian oil company ENI pays the group money.
But UNCA's South South News connection, given what has been disclosed and charged this week, should at a minimum and as a first step disqualify UNCA from first questions from the UN, and from the continuation of its role.
Consider: if it gave rise to criminal charges that South South News paid Ashe to get a GA document for Ng to show off in Macau, who about South South News paying UNCA, and UNCA delivering Ban for a photo op with Ng, that Ng could use for related purposes? We'll have more on this.
Wider, and going forward in this series, limiting UN investigation to OIOS - whose director of investigations Stefanovic has resigned, Inner City Press hereby exclusively reported on October 9 - looking at only two NGOs is laughable. The scandal is expanding: there is a pattern here, pattern and practice. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is in his native South Korea for five days and Press questions remain unanswered by the UN about his links to the scandal surrounding the suicide of South Korean businessman Sung Wan-jong, and his own nephew Joo-hyun "Dennis" Bahn. Inner City Press asked the UN on May 15, video here.
On May 19, Ban urged the media not to ask about, or report on, issues surrounding his nephew. Inner City Press has asked, and will continue to ask, what rules and safeguards apply for example to a company the Secretary General's nephew works with, Colliers International, doing business with the UN, as Colliers Vice Chairman brags. Here is theUN's transcription of Ban's May 19 answer in Seoul, and below.
Inner City Press went to the May 19 UN noon briefing and asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq what Ban had meant, video here, and for how much business Colliers, where Ban's nephew works has done with the UN. Haq refused to provide the latter information, saying "Ask Colliers."
Inner City Press has in the day since collected information, below. But first we note that Ban's spokesperson's office and Haq himself HAVE previously answered Inner City Press questions about particular UN contractors. For example, in April 2009 Haq answered Inner City Press about the Petrocelli Electric Company. So do they only not answer when a Ban relative is involved? What's the difference?
For now, here's some of the business with the UN of Colliers International, where Ban Ki-moon's nephew Joo-hyun "Dennis" Bahn works:
220 East 42nd Street: "The United Nations Development Programme signed a 10-year, 42,931-square-foot lease covering the entire 20th, 21st, and 23rdfloors of 220 East 42nd Street, aka The News Building. Andy Roos of Colliers International acted on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme."
220 East 42nd Street: "United Nations Women is setting up shop at 220 E. 42nd St. where it will lease 71,204 square feet on the 17th, 18th and 19th floors. Additionally a transition team will settle into 13,746 square feet on the 4th floor -- for a total of 84,950 square feet... The deal has been percolating since last year and was made possible because another UN agency moved out. The UN's broker, Andrew Roos of Colliers International, represented the United Nations Population Fund in a move out of the building to 605 Third Ave. last year."
605 Third Avenue: "In a 15-year, four-party deal, the United Nations Population Fund leased just under 131,000 square feet at 605 Third Ave. The turnkey space encompasses the fourth through sixth floors. The UN was represented by Andy Roos at Colliers International, who said the complicated transaction took 18 months to complete."
In fact, the UN's "FF" building on 45th Street has a Colliers International sign on the front of it, facing the sidewalk. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's nephew works at this firm. The UN should answer about its Colliers contracts, but won't.
By contrast on April 6, 2009, Ban's then spokesperson Michele Montas DID answer Inner City Press about a particular contractor, and on April 13, 2009, deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inenr City Press that it had been given details about that contract - NOT being done here, about Ban's nephew.
Inner City Press: I have a procurement question. It’s become clear that, number one, the electrical contractor for the UN, Petrocelli Electric, the founder has been indicted in the Southern District of New York for bribery. At the same time, the operator of UN Television, National Mobile Television Venue Services Group, is basically going bankrupt. Everything is being sold and they’re trying to move their people into the basement area as a final refuge. How can it be that these contracts were entered into with companies in one case being indicted, and in the other case going bankrupt?
Spokesperson Montas: Well, in specific cases, when the contracts were entered, of course, there was no indictment and there were no suspicion that there were any wrongdoings. In terms of the second contract, of course, we can look into this. There are several companies going under and we cannot predict in advance which company will go under. I can try to get more information for you from the Procurement Office, but, at this point, as I said, we cannot predict what will happen when we sign contracts....
Spokesperson: Matthew, I just got your answer. It was just brought to me.
The contract with the Petrocelli Electric Company covers overall electrical installations, operations, maintenance, alterations and major projects, and remains in place even though the UN has suspended the vendor from participating in any further procurement activity. That’s what I have for you. And we’re also aware of the financial difficulties faced by VSG’s parent company, NMT. The Organization is dealing with the situation in consultation with the VSG management. So I got your answer pretty fast for you.
Inner City Press: last week I’d asked about this contract with Petrocelli Electric that the UN has, in light of the indictment of the founder of the company. Over the weekend The New York Times reported that the FBI says that the founder is connected or has associations with the Genovese crime family. So what I’m wondering is now given... if you accept that report is true in The New York Times, what is the UN going to do about these contracts?
Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, Michèle told you what we’re doing in terms of that, and what she said last week hasn’t changed.
Question: So the current contract is going to continue? How long does the current contract run?
Associate Spokesperson: Right now, they’re suspended from the list of vendors, but we do have, of course, our current facility needs. So we have an existing contract. But I believe she mentioned to you the suspension last week and...
Question: For future business. I just want to know how much the current business is and whether this new report makes any changes.
Associate Spokesperson: I think she mentioned to you what the details of that contract were. But I can just re-submit that over to you if you don’t have those details.
Question: I don’t think she said either length or dollar value or any of the details.
Associate Spokesperson: No, I think she mentioned what the services are. So, I’ll get that over to you.
Inner City Press: I want to ask two press freedom questions. One is on Burundi — there are these reports that the media or particularly foreign correspondents are not being allowed into this neighbourhood and cameras taken by the police. I want to know whether Mr. Djinnit is aware of what, what the UN thinks of that. And I wanted to ask, maybe if you can clarify or amplify. I saw the Q&A the Secretary-General did in South Korea, and he said, "I have seen reports having to do with my nephew. While I'm fulfilling… whether true or not, while I'm fulfilling my duties now as Secretary-General, while such unnecessary incorrect allegations or rumours cause inconvenience to my work as Secretary-General, so I'd like to ask you to refrain from doing that." So, because of the… like, what is he saying? Is he saying refrain from asking questions, refrain from…?
Deputy Spokesman: No. First of all, that's an abbreviation of the transcript. I'll refer you to the full transcript.
Inner City Press: I looked… okay.
Deputy Spokesman: He makes a denial of any involvement in this issue. But, his basic point is that he will go about his own work. These questions really don't apply to him or his activities.
Inner City Press: But, who… my question is this. Who is he asking to refrain from doing what? That's a direct quote from what he said.
Deputy Spokesman: He's not making an order to anyone in the press. It's very clear, and it's particularly clear in the context if you look at the transcript that he's talking about an issue that for him, in his head, is resolved.
Inner City Press: But this is… okay because this is the one part of it. I guess I understand that if… if… that things are being played out in a court in Seoul and whether the nephew… what he said that the Secretary-General did or not is, I guess, not going to be answered until it's answered there. But, there's a simpler question, which is, the nephew works for Colliers International, which is a New York real estate firm, and the Vice-Chairman said online that they do business with the UN. So my question is… and I asked you this before, but I'm going back to this because it seems like a very fair question — what are the rules when a relative of the Secretary-General or any high official does business with the UN?
Deputy Spokesman: Procurement at the UN is done through our procurement office. It is not done through any sort of issue having to do with family or family connections. It's a procurement process that all firms have to abide by, and that's how firms get contracts.
Inner City Press: So how did Colliers… how much business has Colliers done with the UN?
Deputy Spokesman: You would have to ask Colliers. As for UN procurement, it makes contracts by its normal activities. This is not connected to anyone related to the Secretary-General. Yes. Oh, and… oh, wait. You had another question on Burundi. And on your Burundi question, see, you ask so many questions that it gets lost. On your Burundi question, of course, we'd be concerned at any efforts to crack down on press. We do have a small human rights team… team of human rights workers who are in Burundi and they're examining human rights issues and they'll follow up on any sort of allegations of any problems in the country.
Here is what Ban said, by the UN's own transcription:
"I’ve seen reports having to do with my nephew. Regardless of whether it’s true or not, I feel quite ashamed that a scandal like this has surfaced and caused controversy. About my nephew’s business activities, I have never known and never took part in any of this. I’d like to tell you clearly that this has nothing to do with me. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I am doing a lot of things for the international community and the international community expects a lot from me. While I am fulfilling my duties as Secretary-General, such unnecessary and incorrect allegations or rumours cause inconvenience to my work as Secretary-General. So I’d like to ask you to refrain from doing that."
Who is Ban request to "refrain," from what? The questions about his nephew are entirely legitimate, and continue because they have not been answered. They don't just go away.
While the Free UN Coalition for Access openly opposes such non-answering by Ladsous (and Ban's spokespeople), Ban praises and partners with the old UN Correspondents Association, whose leaders praise Ban back, do not ask about conflicts of interest, and have even tried to get the investigative Press thrown out for such reporting. This is the context.
On May 18, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq an event more specific question: did Ban raise any of its relatives' real estate projects, for example Landmark 72 in Vietnam, to the Emir of Qatar in a meeting on September 24, 2013? May 18 video here and embedded below.
Haq repeated that Ban is not involved, that he and Ban's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric have "nothing to add." On May 15, Haq told Inner City Press that the UN does not have to respond about any relative of Ban who is not a UN staff member, even if they do business with, or with the name of, the UN and Ban. Inner City Press has raised that higher within the UN.
The JoongAng Daily reports that its affiliate JBTC has obtained an email in which Ban's nephew Bahn Joo-hyun wrote:
“QIA said the emir of Qatar had an official meeting with the UN Secretary General at the United Nations [Headquarters] at 11:30 a.m., and [Secretary General Ban] mentioned the Landmark 72 upon request of [Ban Ki-sang]" - Ban's brother.
Using the time 11:30 a.m., Inner City Press searched past versions of Ban Ki-moon's schedule and found such a meeting:
"September 24, 2013, 11:30 am NLB SG Conf Rm 3rd flr The Secretary-General with H.H. Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar"
But the UN's read-out for that meeting did not mention real estate:
"The Secretary-General met today with His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, Amir of the State of Qatar. The Secretary-General reiterated his call for a political solution to the crisis in Syria, and expressed gratitude to Qatar for its support to the Central Emergency Response Fund and other generous humanitarian assistance. They discussed the Palestine-Israel issue and also the importance of United Nations political efforts in Yemen. The Secretary-General thanked the Amir for Qatari support on the Alliance of Civilizations, sustainable development and climate change.
New York, 24 September 2013."
The Alliance of Civilizations is headed by Qatar's former Permanent Representative to the UN.
(On May 18, 2015, Inner City Press also asked Haq for Ban Ki-moon's response to Qatar detaining BBC journalist Mark Lobel while he was reporting on the treatment of migrant workers in the run up to the World Cup there; Haq's and the UN's response seems muted.)
It is reported that Ban's nephew Ban got business trying to sell off a Sung-linked skyscraper in Vietnam by saying that Ban had discussed the project with Emir of Qatar (on whose private jet Ban has flown), and by reportedly forging a letter of commitment from Qatar's sovereign wealth fund.
On May 14, Ban's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric replied to Inner City Press that Ban has "no connection" with this nephew - strange, just as a matter of genetics.
On May 15, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq a closer question: to confirm that Ban's nephew Bahn has worked for the real estate firm Colliers, and the Colliers has done business with UN.
(Bahn's LinkedIn page lists him at Colliers, whose Vice Chairman Andrew Roos says "Some of his major clients include various divisions of the United Nations, including its Joint Pension Fund... For the United Nations, he has been responsible for more than 500,000 square feet of leasing transactions.")
Despite this set-up, Haq insisted that the UN does not have to, or does not, respond about family members if they are not UN staff.
But what if the Secretary General's family member does BUSINESS with the UN? Haq insisted the UN will not comment, that added that he faced similar questions "ten years ago," apparently an allusion to Kojo Annan and the Mercedes in what's called the Oil for Food scandal. To this has the UN sunk. Video here and embedded below.
Inner City Press will be asking again, if it is legitimate for the UN to say it will not answer any questions about high official's family members using the UN connections to get business and going business with the UN. Here is what UN deputy spokesperson Haq said, and thenthe transcript
Inner City Press: Yesterday, I asked Stéphane about these developing stories about the nephew of the Secretary-General and the claims made about the Qatar Sovereign Wealth Fund. And the reason I… he said yesterday, that the Secretary-General has nothing to do with his nephew. But I wanted to ask because there's been more reporting since even yesterday and basically what's emerged in these articles is that the nephew, Mr.… I don't want to get the name wrong. We'll call him Mr. Ban… Ban Joo-Hyun… had made two claims. He had made a claim to the construction company that was run by the now deceased business man, that the Secretary-General had raised this very project to the Emir of Qatar in a meeting. And he also made a claim that the Qatar Sovereign Wealth Fund was behind the deal. So this is… the question that I have for you is, is even if the Secretary-General is saying that these statements didn't occur, that's what I was trying to get a yes or no on, or if they did occur, he has nothing to do with them, has he informed the members of his family, including his nephew, including his brother who is part of this story, and including, for example, his son-in-law, not to invoke his name when they seek to do business deals that obviously involve Sovereign Wealth Fund of countries that have business with the UN?
Deputy Spokesman: The Secretary-General keeps his work life and his personal life separate. He is not involved in this matter and this is not a matter that involves any UN personnel. Therefore, I would have no comment on it.
Inner City Press:: But there are obviously people reporting quite to the contrary, so I'm asking you is there…
Deputy Spokesman: No, they're not. Actually, Matthew, they're not reporting to the contrary, they're reporting about other people. Nothing of what you said suggests any connection to the United Nations.
Inner City Press: The nephew said that Ban Ki-moon raised this with the Emir of Qatar, so my question is can you deny that? Do you deny that the Secretary General has raised that? Okay.
Deputy Spokesman: The Secretary-General is not involved in this in anyway.
Inner City Press: Okay, and also my fourth and further question. The nephew is reported to work at a New York real estate firm known as Colliers, which partners of whom say they have done business for the United Nations system. So I wanted to know… this seems… this is a just a factual question, is it true that the nephew of the Secretary-General works for a firm called Colliers? And is it true, will you confirm or deny that this firm has done business with the UN?
Deputy Spokesman: I do not have to comment on questions of family members of the Secretary-General who are not employed by the United Nations.
Inner City Press: Doing business with the UN, you don't have to comment?
Deputy Spokesman: He is not UN staff. He has not been UN staff and his business does not concern the United Nations.
Inner City Press: If somebody does business with the UN… I mean that's what I'm asking…
Deputy Spokesman: Matthew, a decade ago, people asked me different questions about other different relatives, but the point is what we concern ourselves with is the work of the UN and its personnel. Yes.
Inner City Press a month ago on April 17, then again yesterday on May 14, asked Ban's UN spokespeople about scandal, the first time drawing laughter and yesterday on a closer link to Ban, a flat but vague denial. The closer link involves Ban's nephew Bahn Joo-hyun and an allegedly forged letter from Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, the Qatar Investment Authority.
Implausibly, Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on May 14 told Inner City Press that Ban has “no connection” with his nephew.
In the same briefing he refused to explain why the UN, in responding to Press questions about another UN scandal involving the cover up of child rape in the Central African Republic by French soldiers and Ban's (French) UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, provided answers only to correspondents who hadn't even asked or in some cases reported about the rapes.
Dujarric told Inner City Press, "Matthew, I can't be responsible for what parties you're invited to or not invited to." Ban later that day feted the so-called UN Correspondents Association, whose leadership not only never asked about Sung Wan-jong but actively tried to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. It's the UN's (or Ban's) Censorship Alliance. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, takes a different approach.
Inner City Press: about the individual, Mr. Sung Wan-jong, who committed suicide, but apparently before he did, said that he had very close ties with Ban Ki-moon. That's why he was being prosecuted and said that they developed the Chungcheong Forum together. So I just wanted to, what was his relationship to the individual who committed suicide? Why does he think his name has come up in connection with this scandal? And does he have some kind of statement of --
Associate Spokesperson: I mean, all we have to say about this is we've seen the reports, and as we've said from this podium and the Secretary-General has himself said many times, his focus is on his job currently and not on Korean domestic politics.
Inner City Press: Sure. It’s less a question about running for office there, then so much as if somebody, right before they commit suicide, says, it's kind of like “Rosebud”, he said Ban Ki-moon, does he…
Associate Spokesperson: We have no comment. [laughter] We have no comment.
In the month that followed, even as the scandal developed, no questions were asked or allowed at the UN about it. Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, when Inner City Press pursued follow up questions, said “you must have been such an obnoxious child.” UNCA said nothing; the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, challenged this and Ladsous' approach including in a flier it posted in the UN's fourth floor press area.
Also on press freedom in Ban's UN and his links with South Korea, a week ago on May 8 Inner City Press asked Dujarric:
Inner City Press / FUNCA: There are a number of reporters complaining publicly in a their publications that they sought to attend a “Journalists at Risk” event yesterday inside the UN in which the ambassadors of France and Belgium spoke and that they were not able to attend it and was told the press was being “banned” from the event.
Spokesman Dujarric: Banning the press is not something I like to do. No press was banned. I think there was miscommunication on the part of the organizers, who probably didn't coordinate the way they should have with our colleagues here. A guest list was provided to our security services, which included journalists. And those people on the guest list were able to attend. I think there may have been misunderstanding where journalists wanted to come in with cameras who didn't have accreditation. We tried to facilitate things as much as possible. As always here, we're happy to host any event, obviously, the Member States are holding. It just needs a minimum of coordination with the various services. But, to say that press was banned, I think is a mischaracterization of what happened.
Inner City Press / FUNCA: Some are contrasting it to the speed with which journalists were processed to attend the Hillary Clinton stakeout. They were saying that this was actually… there was more time to do them, but they were told it's impossible, it can't be done.
Spokesman Dujarric: I would dispute that account, as well. You had country-specific questions?
Inner City Press: The country is South Korea. I just want to know, since it's out there and it has been reported in The Korea Times, can you confirm that the Secretary-General is going to South Korea for four days in and around 22 May?
Spokesman Duarric: I cannot confirm at this point, but I encourage you to attend the briefings next week.
Inner City Press: about this case in South Korea that's been bouncing around for some time, the businessman Mr. Sung, who committed suicide, but mentioned the Secretary-General's name soon before he did it. And there's a new article in the Korea JoongAng Daily, which says that Mr. Ban's nephew Ban Joo-hyun, the manager of a New York-based real estate firm, is somehow involved in this case. And it cites him providing a forged letter for the Qatar Investment Authority, saying a building in Viet Nam was going to be built when it wasn't. I would assume that your office is aware of this. What is the… is any of this true? For example, is his nephew involved in this real estate deal? Does his nephew deny providing a fraudulent Qatari investment fund letter?
Spokesman Dujarric: I think the… This does not… this does not involve the Secretary-General. He has nothing to do with this issue, and he has nothing to do with his nephew. And I think you… I really have nothing else to add.
Inner City Press: I'm only asking because it only has connection to possible politics, countries, the commonwealth fund — do you deny it?
Spokesman Dujarric: I understand… I think… Clearly, the Secretary-General is not involved in any of this. I would like to… oh. Yes. I would like to say have a good weekend. But, go ahead. (Video from Minute 3:53)
