Showing posts with label africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label africa. Show all posts

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Ban Ki-moon When Asked of Canada's Saudi Arms Sale Cites Not Yemen But Syria



By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series

UNITED NATIONS, February 11 -- The UN Secretariat's bungling of Yemen mediation has become ever more clear, according to multiple sources and documents exclusively seen by Inner City Press, see below. 
  The dodging goes right to the top. On February 11 in CanadaUN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked about the human rights implications of Canada's $15 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia: "on States that are parties to the arms treaty... do you have concerns about Canada’s $15 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia?"
   But Ban's answer did not even mention Yemen, instead citing Syria twice, and "Africa" once:
"I have been repeatedly saying that there is no military solution. Sometimes when you address very brutal attacks like terrorism and extremism, sometimes we have to mobilize all legitimate means including military means. At the same time, we think that solutions through political dialogue, inclusive political dialogue, which is very much important and crucial – that’s what the United Nations has been repeatedly emphasizing. What we see in Syria and come conflict-zones in Africa – there is constant flow of arms to either side – Government side or opposition side.

"The United Nations has been making it quite clear that all these conflicts should be resolved through peaceful means, through engaging all the parties in inclusive dialogue – that is what the United Nations is working very hard for peace in Syria. We are working again very hard to resume this suspended meetings between the parties of Syria. I sincerely hope that the International Syrian Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Munich will make some renewed commitment to be able to resume this negotiation. Thank you."
  What about Yemen?
   While when Inner City Press asked last week the UN Office of the Spokesperson said UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was working on this file from the United Arab Emirates, Inner City Press was exclusively informed he's been as far afield as South Korea and Japan, as one source told Inner City Press, "just collecting DSA," referring to the UN's Daily Sustenance Allowance.
  On February 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about this. He curtly confirmed the envoy was in South Korea, "for a conference." When Inner City Press asked how it related to his mandate, the failing talks and DSA, Dujarric simply pointed to another, less critical correspondent. Video here.
  Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed has the UN paying top dollar to people who are hardly working, chilling in London and in one case Mecca, an associate of Hadi. This is UN money, thus public money. What is being accomplished?

 And now this - Inner City Press is informed that the Saudi-led Coalition hit with a missile the UN's own UNFPA compound. The UN should have complained and gone public, but didn't. Why not? Because the UN envoy IOCA has been told to stay away while Saudi Arabia bombs. How's that working out?
 We'll be at the Security Council, on February 17, covering Yemen. On January 29, the UN Spokesman threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room then on February 1 made this threat, here.
 On January 27, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here.
 Back on January 19, Inner City Press asked Uruguay's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Jose Luis Cancela, chairing the day's Security Council debate on Protection of Civilians, if the Council does enough to protect civilians in Yemen, including monitoring the effects of airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. Video here.
 Cancela diplomatically replied that he was not there to comment on specific countries -- inside the Council, there was much talk of Syria, a smattering on Burundi -- but turned the question toward not hitting schools and hospitals, both of which have happened in Yemen.
  On January 18, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq:
Inner City Press: I wanted to on Yemen ask you, there's been this pretty extensively reported airstrike by the coalition in Sana’a on a police station that's apparently killed 25 people.  And also IRIN, previously a UN affiliate, has said that one of its journalists was killed in an airstrike.  And I wanted to know, does the UN… can they confirm particularly the death of the journalist Almigdad Mojalli and do they have any comment on it?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  We don't have the confirmation that we can provide, but certainly we would be concerned about the killing of any journalist.  We're aware of the media reports in this case.
  So, nothing on the airstrike on the police station, and non-acceptance, it seems, of even the statement by Voice of America, which has alsowritten to the UN against the Press. What's wrong with the UN?
In the talks in Switzerland, despite the happy-talk Note to Correspondents issued on December 20, UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was repeatedly accused of merely operating “for the Saudis,” while the Saudi-led coalition took more military action.
 Inner City Press intended to put the question directly to Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, after UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq at the December 22 noon briefing said he would be speaking at the Security Council stakeout after briefing the Security Council.
  But after the Council meeting, in which High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid al Hussein said that of harm to schools and hospitals, "a disproportionate amount appeared to be the result of airstrikes carried out by Coalition Forces" -- Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed did not as promised appear at the stakeout.
 Last time he was at UN Headquarters, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed took only three questions at the stakeout, then went upstairs to the clubhouse of UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association after selling seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6000 and did an interview with the same pro-Saudi / GCC media.
 So where did Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed go this time? Watch this site.
  Inner City Press on December 20 reported that the UN-facilitated talks have been such a failure that there is already a clamor to replace Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. Sources exclusively tell Inner City Press that among the names being mulled is Germany's Bettina Muscheidt, the European Union's Ambassador to Yemen.

  UN insiders point to Germany having lost a UN post when Kim Won-soo replaced Angela Kane as Under Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs. Achim Steiner was passed over for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees post, in favor of Italy's Grandi.  Germany already "got" Libya with Martin Kobler - why not Yemen too? 
Previously: Inner City Press obtained UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's documents for the delayed talks in Switzerland, and exclusively put them online here.
 Envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed proposed that each side have six delegates and six advisers; on December 7 the UN announced eight "negotiators" and four advisers on each side. Hadi announced a seven day ceasefire, December 15 to December 21, or at least that he'd "informed the leadership of the Coalition of our intention to cease-fire." That would be Saudi Arabia, where now Syria armed rebel groups are meeting. Hadi as teacher's pet.
 The UN on December 7 said, "The UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed will convene Yemeni stakeholders in Switzerland on December 15 for a series of face to face consultations."
 According to IOCA's ground rules published by Inner City Press, there will be no press access, other than photographs with the Special Envoy at the start. Delegates shall not use social media. Only the Special Adviser can speak publicly, and he is supposed to be seen has neutral. There are “Ground Rules,” also put online by Inner City Press here.  
The ground rules include that the delegations should not speak with the media, or use social media. On December 4, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about these proposals: are they normal for the UN? Haq said he would not comment on leaks. Video here.

Back on November 10, while Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was on the next to last day of his trip to Saudi Arabia to discussed among other things Yemen, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric to confirm that envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is not even IN Saudi Arabia with Ban.
 Dujarric confirmed that he is not there, but would not confirm that he is in his native Mauritania, to which Inner City Press is informed he flew on the UN's dime, for a vacation, signed off on by the top of the Department of Political Affairs.
Inner City Press has reported from sources dates on which the UN's envoy went to Dubai, purpose UNknown. Given his follow UN enovy Bernardino Leon's deal with the UAE, this must now be explained and acted on by the UN.
Inner City Press previously reported on and published the Houthis' letterdenouncing UN envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed as little more than a Saudi tool. Now it's gotten worse: even Kenny Gluck who works for the envoy and went to Muscat trying to meet the Houthis was unable. He waited then returned to Riyadh. 
    The envoy, meanwhile, is said by those who know him to not only be “laughably” cheap -- putting in for reimbursement for an eight dollar taxi ride from the UN to a Mission on 67th Street, for example -- but also still involved in the same business for which Inner City Press previously dubbed him “the Fisherman” or the “Fishy Envoy.”  
  He has traveled on the UN's funds to Dubai, claiming he would meet the Houthis there. Not only will the Houthis not meet with him -- even if they would, they would not be found in Dubai, given that the UAE is part of the coalition. In any event, Abu Dhabi is the capital, not Dubai. There is something... fishy.
  Now we can report what UN sources say are dates of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's travel to Dubai: May 11; June 3 and June 5; August 1 and August 4; September 12-15; October 9-11; October 26; November 4; and prospectively November 10 and November 12.  
 What are Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's trips to Dubai for? Given the UAE's offer to UN Envoy Bernarndino Leon, while he was UN Envoy to Libya, this question must be answered.
  So on November 4, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric,video here, transcript here.
  On October 26 Inner City Press reported that its sources exclusively told it of a new low, that the UN brought into Sana'a what the Houthis call two members of US intelligence, with the cover identification that they work for the company running the former hotel now occupied by the UN. But, the sources say, security in Sana'a recognized the two and they are now detained. 
  On October 30, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, video here, transcript here and below. Dujarric acknowledged he knew about two "contractors."
 On November 2, amid wire reports derivative and worse, Inner City Press followed up, video here, UN transcript here.
 Meanwhile on November 2 the US Statement Department was referring questions to this UNresponsive UN: "We’re aware of those reports. Due to privacy considerations, I’m not going to comment on them...  I would direct your questions to the UN."
  After Inner City Press' October 26 report and October 30 noon briefing questions, on October 31 Reuters "reported" a piece citing an unnamed UN spokesperson about two "contractors," with no mention of the Houthis claim they work with US intelligence, which by now had also been reported, along with Inner City Press' October 30 Q&A with Dujarric, by Al-Akhbar.
  But it's worse. Reuters initially (mis) reported that "'Two contractors have been detained and the Deputy Secretary-General (Jan Eliasson) is looking into it,' a U.N. spokesman said without elaborating or confirming if the two were American citizens."
  Then a day after that, Reuters blamed the UN for its correction to "'Two contractors have been detained and DSS (Department of Safety and Security) is looking into it,' said a U.N. spokesman."
  It would seem the UN spokesman, left unnamed by Reuters, said "DSS" and Reuters mis-heard it as "DSG," didn't note it would be strange for the UN's second highest official to be on two contractors when lower official Herve Ladsous is the one who made a call for 13 contractors in South Sudan.
 But Reuters, including the Thomson Reuters Foundation Trust.org,running its correction, says "UN corrects source of information in second paragraph." So the UN made the mistake?
 This is the same Reuters which on Friday regurgitated a UN report which Inner City Press had reported and asked the UN about fully two weeks earlier, same Reuters which refused to make public its policies, and tries to censor its anti Press complaints to the UN, here. We'll have more on this. 

 We'll have more on this.
  Meanwhile the Houthis are denouncing UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad and his (mis) representation to the Security Council regarding what they agreed to. This has happened before and the goal seems to be delay to allow for more air strikes. There's work of mercenaries, in essence, including from Colombia in Aden, joining the troops from ICC-indicted Sudan.
 A new level of dysfunction was hit with the deployment in Aden of hundreds of troops from Sudan, putting ICC-indicted Omar al-Bashir on the same side as the US and UK. (Inner City Press is exclusively informed that "UN" envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is working on a similar Saudi deal with his native Mauritania, see below.)
Now Inner City Press is reliably and exclusively informed of a letter, drafted by Saudi Arabia and conveyed to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, which has Ban thanking Hadi and stating that the Houthis have agreed without reservation to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2216.  They have not - this is just another misleading move by the envoy, not a third strike but a fourth.
  But more fundamentally, why would Ban Ki-moon even consider signing a letter that was drafted by Saudi Arabia? Ban's Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, arguably undermining the envoy, recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and then Iran.
  Inner City Press is reliably and exclusively informed that the Saudis snubbed Eliasson, denying several of his meeting requests and finally providing him only with the Foreign Minister, just before he left. In Iran, complaints against envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed were lodged, that he does not have the trust of the Houthis. What kind of envoy is this? What kind of UN?
  The UN's envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, after complaining about his leaked email showing his marginalization from Yemen talks, that Hadi had committed to come to talks. The Security Council praised him in a Press statement.
  Then Hadi canceled. It is similar to the UN's ceasefire-that-wasn't, and the failed "talks" in Geneva in which the UN never gave the Houthis passes to get into the UN building, after allowing them to be delayed along the way so that Ban never met them (while meeting with an individual on the US Al Qaeda sanctions list.)
  In many contexts it's "three strikes and you're out," in this case faux ceasefire and two talks that never happened. But the Security Council has not updated its Press Statement of praise; some members apparently simply work around the UN envoy. We'll have more on this.
  On September 5 as airstrikes on Sana'a picked up force, there was no comment from the UN or its envoy Ismail Ould Cheihk Ahmed. Nor on September 6. On September 7, the UN finally spoke -- not about the airstrikes but about a leak.
  On September 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujrarric if he was denying the veracity of the UN email Inner City Press published, below. Dujarric did not deny it. Video here. Inner City Press on September 9 asked Dujarric's deputy, below, on September 9 about Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.
  Inner City Press exclusively reported the following: on August 27-28 in Muscat, the US and UK, the EU Ambassador to the UN and Saudi intelligence, met with the Houthis -- without the UN and its envoy present, or even sources say aware of the meeting. These sources say that the UN's Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was on vacation in his native Mauritania, and was entirely out of the loop. 
  On September 10, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft if the UK had met with the Houthis and GPC in Muscat, without the UN Envoy present. Video here. 
  Meanwhile Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed says the same parties will now meet with him. Replay?

  On September 9, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, video here, transcript here. 
  The September 10 briefing by this envoy to the UNSC was requested by the UK - which, it seems, met with the Houthis without Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.
  Sources also note to Inner City Press that the Saudi have "dissed" Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, relegating him only to meeting with Saudi intelligence, not diplomats as was previously the case with the UN. This too is embarrassing to the UN. 

  On August 7 Inner City Press was informed that as Houthis and Saleh's GPC headed to Oman for consultations on August 8 and 9, the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was not even initially invited. He had to beg to get included, which after sweating has been allowed, in the run-up to his briefing on August 12 to the Security Council.
 On August 12, Inner City Press asked Yemen Permanent Representative, outside the Council meeting, questions ranging from the destruction of schools and health care facilities in Sa'ada by Saudi airstrikes to when, according to him, the Houthis might be "driven" out of Sa'ana. Video here. He said in a few weeks - and added that the Oman talks were "not UN."
 So how then might the parties negotiate? UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was headed back to Riyadh. That seems to be his base, where he works from - and for? Watch this site.

  Oman has received murky thanks for France for facilitating the release of a hostage, who was working for the Social Development Fund there. Did Oman pay for France? Or will others be released, as France brought about in Mali?
  On July 28, Inner City Press asked Saudi Arabia's Permanent Representative about Mokha or Mocha; he replied that previous allegations about Saudi airstrikes on Old City Sana'a and on a palace in Aden once used by Queen Elizabeth had been proven untrue. We'll have more on this.
  Inner City Press asked Yemen's representative about the talks in Cairo involving the United Arab Emirates, allies of former president Saleh and, it's said, the US and UK. He replied that the Yemeni government - in exile - deals through formal channels, the GCC or UN.
  He might have been asked, which foreign minister is he reporting to: the one named by Hadi, or the one - his predecesor - named by Bahah? We'll have more on this as well. 
   After publishing its multi-sourced story, Inner City Press on July 22 asked the UN's Associate Spokesperson about new APC and weapons in Aden, and if Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is on vacation. Video here. She replied that she would check - but did not revert with any response either way.
  So on July 23, amid reports that without Cheikh Ahmed or any UN presence talks were occurring about Yemen in Cairo, Inner City Pressasked, here.
  Inner City Press asked the UN where Cheikh Ahmed is. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press that he has been "planning his travels," soon to Riyadh. Yeah, Inner City Press was told by another less constrained but at least as knowledgeable source: planning his future travels while already on vacation. Another source compared it to then UN envoy to Pakistan Jean-Maurice Ripert going on vacation amid national disasters in Pakisan and then losing his post. 
   The buzz in Sana'a, where Hadi has named a governor in exile described as an Islamist, is that Cheikh Ahmed may well have known of the plans to bring in APC and weapons to those fighting the Houthis in Aden, and so "misleadingly" urged a pause. Another compared this to the UN luring out surrendering rebel leaders in Sri Lanka - to their deaths.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

UN Security Council in 2014 More than Half Africa Again, But Europe / Ukraine Doubled to 16.6%, Up from 7% in 2013, What Was Accomplished?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- The UN Security Council held 36% more meetings in 2014 than in 2013, as counted by the “Highlights of Security Council Practice 2014” published this month by the UN.

   Among the litany of statistics in the Highlights, here's one that jumped out to Inner City Press: while the percentage of the Council's country-specific or regional meetings that concern Africa is still above 50%, it declined in 2014 in the face of increase in meetings classified as about “Europe,” the new ones nearly all about Ukraine.

  In 2013, 66% of country- or region-specific meetings by the Security Council were about Africa, and 7% were about Europe.

  In 2014, by contrast, 54.7% of country- or region-specific meetings by the Security Council were about Africa, and 16.6% were about Europe.

   Asia is by far the most populous continent, and is not without its problems and conflicts. But less than 4% of Security Council country- or region-specific meeting are about Asia, and less than 2% - Haiti - are about the Americas.

  The Council-authorized troops size for MINUSTAH in Haiti, where the Security Council is today, was reduced in 2014 by 2,651, a larger decrease that in Cote d'Ivoire (1,700) and Darfur -- reduction of 355 as violence continues and the UNAMID mission covered-up allegations of mass rape in Tabit.

   The UN's report is interesting, but for obvious reasons does not assess the effectiveness of the Security Council's actions. Yes, the Council imposed sanctions in Yemen in 2014, including on Ali Saleh and two Houthi leaders. But did it work? 

  The “regime change letter” on the letterhead of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, exclusively exposed by Inner City Press, is not mentioned. But the UN's reporting on itself, of which this is a better example than most, is not the only reporting on the UN. Watch this site.


 
  

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

As UNSC Methods Reviewed, PGA John Ashe's Euro-Heavy Reform Group Says It's in Charge: ACT Up


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- During the all-day debate Tuesday in the UN Security Council, ostensibly of its Working Methods, the recent naming by President of the General Assembly John Ashe of a six-country advisory group on Council Reform was the elephant in the room, or Chamber.

  What was this group, first reported on by Inner City Press, set up to do? Why are three of its six members European, along with Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea and Brazil?

  Some have complained to Inner City Press that Sierra Leone didn't attend the first, "slapped together" meeting. A second meeting, they say, was held yesterday October 29 -- again, sans Ashe. (In fairness, Inner City Press published Ashe's office's response, here.)
  Brazil came out and said: the group, which is it on, will come up with a text which is to be the basis of inter-governmental negotiations. Another G-4 member, Germany, echoed this in its speech (which as we noted, also mentioned the growing role of Twitter, which the German Mission told Inner City Press in context includes media tweets, here.)
Later Tuesday evening yet another G4 member told Inner City Press they like this process. United for Consensus? Not so much.
Japan of the G4 said that even the current Elected Ten members weren't consulted on Syria. (In fact, despite UK calling in Valerie Amos and France calling in Saudi-sponsored rebel Ahmad al Jarba, it's largely down to Russia and the US, which even envoy Lakhdar Brahimi seems to be chafing against.)
Many points were made by members of ACT, and some surprising ACT supporters. Here's another one, on issues of needed transparency: the Free UN Coalition for Access,@FUNCA_info. 
  And here's an example: even the question of which media could cover the "Council's" recent Africa trip was decided, without transparency, by a single colonial member, France. African members, and others, weren't consulted. It's time to ACT up.
  New Zealand recalled that the Secretary General, under Article 99 of the Charter, can put urgent matters in front of the Council. But as Inner City Press reported, daily at the time, on Sri Lanka Ban Ki-moon never did that.
  He has a report saying that should happen in the future -- but his Office of the Spokesperson told Inner City Press the report, already leaked to Inner City Press by a UN whistleblower, may or may not exist. And so it goes in this UN. Watch this site.

 
  

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

At UN P5+1 in Geneva, Iran Speaking English, Facebook Back Pain, Reuters Quartet


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 15 -- With the UN in New York closed for Eid, the UN in Geneva is hosting the Iran P5+1 talks, complete with normally open doors locked and the gray cubicle walls that pass for security or privacy in UN-world.

  Iran's Javad Zarif is still suffering from back pain -- this according to Doctor Cathy Ashton of the EU -- but made his proposal in painfully archaic PowerPower on Tuesday morning. 

 The talks were held in English, leaving some wondering if France lodged a Francophony based protest as they often do at the UN in New York.

When Zarif last met Ban Ki-moon in New York, going up to Ban's 38th floor office to cover it were only Inner City Press and five Iranian reporters. But Geneva has (over?) full coverage, with Reuters "winning" the battle of excess with four separate reporters. One of them has demonstrably spied for the UN, click here for that, so the full count is not clear.
There are photos of the handshakes and even journalists' photos of other journalists' laptop live-tweeting, what else, photos. Whatever happens it will be documented.

 Back on the last day of the UN General Debate, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirkypostponed the day's noon briefing in deference to Israel's Bibi Netanyahu's speech. 


   On Monday in the UN Legal Committee in New York, Iran trashed the threat of use of force without UN permission. The US on the other hand said dryly that a study of the third state impact of sanctions is no longer needed.

  With the US government shutdown ongoing, the State Department is maintaining a virtual Twitter strike. While this was presented as the reason for US UN Ambassador Samantha Power's radio silence during the Security Council's recent Africa trip -- misreported by Reuters -- the US Mission to the UN did Tweet some news when she returned. Then stopped.

  And so the field is open for the new Iranian administration and its social media skills, including back pain on Facebook. Bring it on! Watch this site.

 
  

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

UN Lawyer Refused To Appear Before GA, Jeremic Says,HRW's Roth Reversed, No Oversight, Least of All by UN's Censorship Alliance



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 16 -- Of all the things Vuk Jeremic said at his hour long press conference about last week's debate on the “Role of International Criminal Justice in Reconciliation,” what seems most Pressing is the total lack of accountability of officials of Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat.
  Jeremic recounted asking Ban's top lawyer Patricia O'Brien to speak on a panel, on this legal topic directly within her responsibilities. According to Jeremic, O'Brien refused, saying that she had other unspecified more important things to do that day.
  The General Assembly is supposed to oversee the UN. How can a Secretariat official just refuse to appear before it, citing other more important things to do without saying what they are?
  Imagine, in the US, Attorney General Eric Holder trying to tell Congress that he wouldn't come, he had something else to do. He would soon be having nothing ELSE but something else to do.
  But in this UN system there is no oversight; there is no accountability.
  Given this, the role of the media in trying to watchdog and question UN official is all the more important. This too often breaks down. 
   But it is pervasive. Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, who demanded the first question in the Jeremic press conference in the name of the UN Correspondents Association, has written to the UN claiming that Inner City Press' question have harassed certain diplomats and UN officials, making them reluctant to give press conferences.
  So asking hard questions is a bad thing for a journalist to do? What kind of association IS this UNCA? It's now called the UN's Censorship Alliance.
Inner City Press on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked Jeremic about criticism it has received from some African Permanent Representatives, that his upcoming debate on Africa seems focused on “conflict rather than renaissance.”
  Jeremic pointed out that the sub-title involves the nexus of development and conflict, and that the panels will go (assuming, of course, no cancellations).
  Inner City Press asked about the draft Syria resolution, on which it first reported and put online two drafts. Jeremic said he has been traveling - China, Istanbul - and will now become more engaged. He said switching Syria seat to the opposition raises concerns for many, as a precedent.
  Following up on the “Role of International Criminal Justice in Reconciliation” cancellation, Inner City Press first tweeted the question to Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth, then sent him and Jeremic's office this:
This is a Press request for all correspondence concerned the PGA's February 13 invitation, the stated February 18 confirmation and March 13, 2013 cancellation regarding the April 10 debate on the “Role of International Criminal Justice in Reconciliation.” A request was an explanation of the reversal was sent via Twitter during the PGA's press conference:
While no explanation has been received, we are following up on the PGA's direction to e-mail a request for all correspondent, with a cc to the interlocutor Ken Roth. Here it is.
Watch this site.

Friday, April 12, 2013

With Obama, Ban on Africa, Haiti Not Shown, Minova Rapes Covered Up By Ladsous & Raid



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 12 -- There was no mention of Africa when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon emerged Thursday from his meeting with US President Barack Obama. 
  Ban gave a 740 word summary of the meeting, and not one of them was Mali, or Sudan, or Congo, or Somalia, much less Haiti.
  This is strange, since it is in these countries and countries like it that the UN actually has billion dollar peacekeeping missions, and actually does its work. So why didn't Ban mention it?
In Darfur, Sudan, over 50,000 have had to flee from fighting into Chad. 
  In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the day before Ban's meeting with Obama, the UN's inaction on 126 rapes in Minova was exposed on BBC, putting UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous' stonewalling of Inner City Press' questions about the rapes for months into sharp contrast. (Video here, here and here).
  In Haiti, the UN mission closest to the UN, the introduction of cholera was met with legal claims which Ban tersely dismissed. The mission continues without a permanent head, as Ban tries to force the Haitian to accept the Trinidadian candidate he selected.
  For Mali, which the US says it cares about, Ban is poised as Inner City Press has exclusively reported to name Italian deputy foreign minister Staffan De Mistura as his envoy.
  But all Ban spoke about after meeting with Obama was Syria, North Korea, the “Middle East” and climate change. Why?
  Before writing this article, Inner City Press went to the April 12 UN noon briefing to ask. Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey said that in such meetings, time is limited.
  OK. But what exactly is the UN's role in the Korean conflict, other than Ban's personal interest as former South Korean foreign minister?
  Del Buey quickly emphasized that North Korea could fire a small nuclear weapon. So if Africa had nukes? Or Haiti?
  Inner City Press asked if there was any read-out of Ban's meeting with World Bank president Jim Kim. No, there was not. On that, Team Ban is extremely sensitive when Jim Kim's Korean heritage is brought it, essentially calling this racist.
  But if the UN Secretary General is supposed to base his focus not on his own nationality but on the problems of the world, particular those overlooked by leaders of rich nations, why could Ban not bring up Africa once?
  At lower level, why are the noon briefings of his spokespeople often devoid of questions about Africa except, we hate to say, from Inner City Press?
And why, given this, did Ban's UN conduct a raid on Inner City Press' office on March 18, rifle through papers and take photographs, which were subsequently leaked to BuzzFeed through an anonymous “Concerned UN reporter” email account?
Who Are these “concerned UN reporters”? Why was the president of the UN Correspondents Association Pamela Falk allowed to take photographs of the raid? 
  When the question was raised, she responded with a legal threat from her CBSNews.com email accounting, which CBS has refused to clarify.
When Ban met with the UNCA Executive Committee for lunch, he gave them quotes but the highlights given to others hours later had nothing on Sudan or Congo or Haiti. 
  Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, when Inner City Press asked, said that those had come up, but declined to say how. And none of the UNCA -- UN Censorship Alliance -- opaque apostles wrote on the topic, or released their tapes or transcripts. This UN is broken, as it breaks into Press office space. Watch this site.