Ban Ki-moon's Trip Starts in Qatar But No Gaza, Still, UN Won't Confirm to Inner City Press Free Use of Qatari Plane

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 19, more here -- On the day UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is to "travel to the region" of Israel and Palestine, diplomats told Inner City Press that Ban will fly -- on a Qatari plane -- to Qatar, Ramallah (but not for now Gaza), Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

  At 6:20 on July 19, the UN announced "The Secretary-General is traveling to the Middle East this weekend to express solidarity with Israelis and Palestinians and to help them, in coordination with regional and international actors, to end the violence and find a way forward. To that end, he will begin his travel on Sunday in Doha, Qatar. From there, he will travel onward to Kuwait City, Cairo, Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman in his effort to encourage a durable cease-fire. Other stops may also be added. He will return to New York by the end of the week."

   There was no answer, yet, on the use of a Qatari plane. The diplomats who complained to Inner City Press questioned not only Ban taking free flights from a particular country, but also how the use (and landing) of a Qatari plane will play in, for example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

   Ban's spokesman has responded but not yet answered.

 Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokespeople, and the spokesperson listed as on weekend duty, the following:

"Please state whether the Secretary General is accepting free transportation from any member state or outside party for his current trip to the region concerning the Gaza crisis, and if so please explain the reason and any safeguards in place against influence or conflict of interest.

"Such disclosure should be common practice; if necessary, note that former Spokesperson Nesirky did answer such Press questions, for example concerning the Secretary General flying on a UAE plane (see sample below). On deadline, thank you in advance.

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Subject: Your questions
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

- The UAE Government provided an aircraft to fly the Secretary-General from Beirut to Abu Dhabi because of time constraints.

     Later on July 19, the following was received, which we publish in full 25 minutes after receipt:

From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Press question if SG is accepting free travel from any member state or outside party, as was disclosed in 2012, on deadline, thanks
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress [dot] com
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

Dear Matthew, Thanks for your question and thanks for the draft answer. The logistical details of the SG's trip, including the travel arrangements are still being worked out. Once we are in a position to confirm them, i will revert.

best

Stephane Dujarric (Mr.)
Spokesman for the Secretary-General

  Inner City Press has thanked Dujarric and his colleagues for the interim response and asked, "both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Poroshenko's office say they have spoken with the Secretary General and give read-outs. Will a UN read-out be put out? If so, when? If not, why not?"

    For now we note that the Qatari foreign ministry has listed on its website, for example, receiving a call from Ban Ki-moon. Earlier on July 19, this came out from Jeddah:

"The Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Iyad Ameen Madani, asked the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon to visit the Gaza Strip during his current tour of the region in order to observe first hand the severe damage to innocent human lives, the destructions of homes and infrastructure caused by the unrelenting Israeli raids on Gaza, that have also claimed the lives of hundreds of mostly defenseless Palestinian elderly and children."

  On July 18 after the Gaza meeting of the UN Security Council, the Press was sent "the revised draft resolution that will be put before the Members of the Security Council by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in its capacity as the Arab representative on the Security Council."

  Inner City Press put the document online, here, explicitlycomparing it to Resolution 1860 (2009), which passed because the US abstained but did not veto, as it would later do on settlements. We will stay on this.

  Meanwhile the French government has banned a demonstration planned for July 19 about the situation of Palestinians in Gaza. 

  Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN's position. Haq said "our general point of view on this is that people have a right to peaceful protest.... We'd have to see how this proceeds, you're talking about something to happen in the future."

  But the ban is already in place.

  While the French government predicts that Saturday's demonstration would be violent, that's akin to prior restraint or profiling. There are have peaceful protests about Palestine in France, for example on July 16.

  But from Niger -- appropriately -- Francois Hollande said “we cannot allow the conflict to be imported into France." 

 Is Ban's UN criticizing France? Is a man biting a chien? Whether a formal statement comes out may be the test.

  So how is a statement of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon produced? The question was raised by those, both in the real / outside world and even inside the UN who were surprised by this Ban statement of July 13:

“The Secretary-General, abhorring the images of Israeli families hovering in shelters in fear for their children's safety, repeats his condemnation of Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza and demands an immediate cessation of these indecent attacks. The Secretary-General is also deeply worried about the impact on Palestinian families of Israeli military action.”

   Several UN officials expressed surprise or even "disgust... at putting Israel first despite no deaths versus 180 in Palestine, abhorring the first but only 'deeply worried' about Gazans."

  And so based on complaints and reporting, Inner City Press can say that such statements are said to originate with a desk officer in UN Department of Political Affairs, run by former US diplomat Jeffrey Feltman.

  Then they are reviewed, on the Middle East, by Antonella Caruso, then Feltman, then in Ban's office one Andrew Gilmour. That's how this statement was issued, Inner City Press is informed.

  On July 12 at noon the UN Security Council issued a press statement on Gaza, after several rounds of back and forth. After that, nothing stopped -- nothing at all. 

  Just past noon in New York Inner City Press asked the State of Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour of the status of the (stronger) draft resolution, and if he expects US Secretary of State John Kerry to mediate or facilitate.

  Mansour said if Israel does not stop, other steps will be taken including in the Security Council.

  Hours later, the Israel Defense Force itself confirmed to Ha'aretz and others that "Israel Navy's Shayetet 13 (Flotilla 13) commando unit raided a target in the Gaza Strip."

  Now what?

  A Gulf media demanded an explanation of the three hour delay, then asked another question to Mansour and the Saudi Ambassador beside him.

  Tellingly, hours later that same Gulf media posted online a story about the UN Security Council press statement quoting Reuters, not present at the stakeout, about the statement.

  Meanwhile, Reuters claimed a (compensated) "exclusive" about Jordan and the US on Syria -- without even mentioning the two countries' negotiations about the Gaza output(s) of the UN Security Council. 

  On July 11 after Inner City Press specified the timing -- and the stated theory that the US gave in after an emergency session of the Arab Group at the UN moved toward a resolution that the US would have to veto -- something changed.

  Informed sources told Inner City Press that while the US, or "Washington," initially said they would accept no Security Council action at this point, once an emergency meeting of the Arab Group moved for a draft resolution, the US changed tack.

  "The US doesn't want to have to veto, so they can continue to point the finger at Russia and China on Syria," as one source put it.  So the US agreed - or was said to agree -- to a press statement calling for a ceasefire.
 
  The source went on "If Israel disregards it and continues, what will the Council do?" What, indeed. .

  Inside the Security Council on July 10, Israel's Ron Prosor told BanKi-moon that while he had given his speech, five rockets had been fired at Israel (Prosor played a rocket warning siren on his phone, to make his point.) At the stakeout, on-camera, Prosor raised the number of rockets to six.

  While Palestine's Riyad Mansour spoke on camera, the stakeout was nearly full with journalists. But when Prosor spoke there were far fewer -- one of whom told Inner City Press, “This is a question for FUNCA,” the Free UN Coalition for Access. Again Prosor played the rocket siren warning, and used the line “From Abuja to Falluja.”

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about those who say Hamas is not formally part of the unity government; he replied, “Hamas is Hamas.”

  On Palestine joining or complaining to the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press' question which Ban Ki-moon dodged on July 9, Prosor did not answer. Yet.

  Watch this site.

   

From Baghdad, US To Temporarily Relocate Some After UN Said It's Safe, Ban Ki-moon Still Silent on Kyiv Embassy Attack

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 15 -- After the UN on June 13 told Inner City Press it assesses Baghad to be safe from the advance of ISIL, on June 15 US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki announced:

"As a result of ongoing instability and violence in certain areas of Iraq, Embassy Baghdad is reviewing its staffing requirements in consultation with the State Department.  Some additional U.S. government security personnel will be added to the staff in Baghdad; other staff will be temporarily relocated – both to our Consulate Generals in Basra and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman.

"We advise U.S. citizens in Iraq to exercise caution and limit travel to Anbar, Ninawa, Salah ad-Din, Diyala, and Kirkuk provinces; make their own contingency emergency plans; and maintain security awareness at all times."

  Iraq's neighbor Iran was spoken to, through its Vice President, by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who alluded to the role Iran could play, and also the P5+1 nuclear talks with their July 20 deadline. Meanwhile Ban was entirelysilent on the attack on Russia's embassy in Kyiv, long after he condemned the downing of Ukraine's military plane. 

 As ISIL advanced through Iraq on June 13, at the UN Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if it's true that UN assesses Baghdad to be safe - and is so, why? Video here.
 
  The UN's Haq said while different parts of Iraq are under threat, the UN's assessment is indeed that Baghdad is safe. If you say so.

  Inner City Press also asked for any UN comment on calls to arm the population in Baghdad to confront ISIL. Haq said he'd seen the comment made by "Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, we don't have any comments to make about that." Video here.

  Iraq has blocked much of social media, and Twitter has suspended an account associated with ISIL, which live-tweeted ISIL's advances.
  
   Was Twitter's suspension of @Nnewsi at governmental request -- and to confirm, which government?

In March, Turkey blocked Twitter citing a court order, after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in order to get his leaked phone calls removed from Google's YouTube hasreportedly "copyrighted" his calls.

   Both censorship moves have echoes in the United Nations, which as part of its renovation accepted money and named an area by the Security Council previously open to all accredited journalists the "Turkish Lounge."

   As set forth below, an anti-Press complaint to the UN's Stephane Dujarric, now Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson, has been banned from Google's Search by an invocation of copyright similar to Erdogan's.

   Google has accepted and acted on DMCA complaints about leaked e-mails, for example from Reuters to the United Nations seeking to get the investigative Press thrown out, and has then blocked access to the leaked documents from its search.

  In this case, copyright is being (mis) claimed for an email from Reuters' Louis Charbonneau to the UN's chief Media Accreditation official Stephane Dujarric -- since March 10 Ban Ki-moon's new spokesperson -- seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN.  

  Access to the document has been blocked from Google's search based on a cursory take-down request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 

 If this remains precedent, what else could come down? 

  Why not an email from Iran, for example, to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency? Why not a sanctions filing by a country? Here is Reuters logic, accepted if only automatically by Google:

The copyrighted material is a private email I wrote in April 2012 and for which I never gave permission to be published. It has been published on a blog and appears in on the first page of search results for my name and the firm I work for, Reuters. It can be seen here: http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf

  But this is true of ANY leaked document: it can be said that the entity or person exposed "never gave permission [for it] to be published." Does that mean Google can or should block search access to it?

  Can a complaint to a Media Accreditation official against a competitor legitimately be considered "private"? In any event, the DMCA is not about protecting privacy.

  Iran or North Korea could say a filing or status report they make with the IAEA is "private" and was not intended to be published. Would Google, receiving a DMCA filing, block access to the information on, say, Reuters.com?

  Charbonneau's bad-faith argument says his complaint to the UN was "published on a blog." Is THAT what Reuters claims makes it different that publication in some other media?

  The logic of Reuters' and Charbonneau's August 14, 2013 filing with Google, put online via the ChillingEffects.org project, is profoundly anti free press.

  The fact that Google accepts or didn't check, to remain in the DMCA Safe Harbor, the filing makes it even worse. The request to take-down wasn't made to InnerCityPress.com or its server -- it would have been rejected. But banning a page from Search has the same censoring effect.

  The US has a regime to protect freedom of the press, and against prior restraint. But this is a loophole, exploited cynically by Reuters. What if a media conducted a long investigation of a mayor, fueled by a leaked email. When the story was published, could the Mayor make a Reuters-like filing with Google and get it blocked?

  Here is the text of Charbonneau's communication to the UN's top Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit official Stephane Dujarric and MALU's manager, to which he claimed "copyright" and for now has banned from Google's Search:

Hi Isabelle and Stephane,

I just wanted to pass on for the record that I was just confronted by Matt Lee in the DHL auditorium in very hostile fashion a short while ago (there were several witnesses, including Giampaolo). He's obviously gotten wind that there's a movement afoot to expel him from the UNCA executive committee, though he doesn't know the details yet. But he was going out of his way to be as intimidating and aggressive as possible towards me, told me I "disgust" him, etc.

In all my 20+ years of reporting I've never been approached like that by a follow journalist in any press corps, no matter how stressful things got. He's become someone who's making it very hard for me and others in the UN press to do our jobs. His harassment of fellow reporters is reaching a new fever pitch.

I just thought you should know this.

Cheers,

Lou
Louis Charbonneau
Bureau Chief. United Nations
Reuters News Thomson Reuters reuters. com

This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.

"UNCA" in the for-now banned e-mail is the United Nations Correspondents Association. The story developed here, as to Sri Lanka; here is a sample pick-up in Italian, to which we link and give full credit, translated into English (NOT for now by Google)...
   

Annals of UK Diplomacy: As UK Envoy to Jordan Peter Millett Calls Khartoum's Airport the World's Worst, What Was He Doing in Sudan?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- When the UK'sAmbassador to Jordan publicly opines that in his experience the airport in Khartoum, Sudan is the worst in the world, is it a form of naming and shaming? Or does it just given rise to the question, what was Ambassador Peter Millett DOING in Khartoum?

Earlier today Millett tweeted, "Which is your worst #airport in the world? For me it's #Khartoum Last week it was hot, dirty and devoid of any information or welcome."

Inner City Press has been in the Khartoum airport, and like many around the world it leaves a lot to be desired. But the lack of diplomacy seemed noteworthy, so when Inner City Press saw Millett's tweet it replied from @InnerCityPress,"This is classic UK diplomacy."

This in turn was picked up by the Sudan Tribune, which also asked, what was Millett doing in Sudan? Millett meanwhile has replied only to an ICT consultant who follows, what else, the Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan where Millett is based.

What's next, Millett's review of refugee camps? We'll be happy to publish what he puts out. Watch this site.

   

Saudi Arabia Set to Begged by Arab League & Kerry to Have its (UN Security Council) Seat & Eat it Too

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 2 -- Follow Saudi Arabia's announcement it would not take the UN Security Council seat it without competition won, the last two weekends have featured orchestrated moves by the Arab Group at the UN in New York to ask Saudi Arabia to reconsidered.

Two weeks ago, a press release to this effect was sent out, but several Arab Group members complained to Inner City Press that the statement had not properly been circulated or approved. This was cured last weekend, after an in-person meeting of the Arab Group ambassadors on October 25.

Now things are moving up a notch. The League of Arab States will meet at the ministerial level in Cairo on November 3, on paper about Syria and to meet Saudi-sponsored opposition figure Ahmed al Jarba -- but also, sources tell Inner City Press, to formally ask Saudi Arabia to reverse itself and take the Security Council seat.

  This is to be sealed with US Secretary of State John Kerry's visit after Cairo to Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh, where the sources predict to Inner City Press Kerry will "so supplicate" to the King that Saudi Arabia will claim victory and taken the position: have its seat and eat it too.

  Meanwhile Kerry's spokesperson is hyping other portions of his upcoming trip, on Saturday "welcoming" to Twitter Jordan's Nasser Judeh (who has long been on Twitter) and saying Kerry looks forward to meeting him his week. 

 What about the Saudi King? What's that Kerry visit about?

  The other stops on Kerry's trip, beyond Cairo, Riyadh and Amman, are Warsaw, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Abu Dhabi, Algiers, and Rabat.

In New York, Inner City Press has repeatedly asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to name the last date on which Ban met with the Saudis, and now toconfirm or deny that Saudi Arabia declined a visit by UN (and Arab League) envoy on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi. 

 Ban's office will answer none of this; instead Ban offered the type of praise of Saudi Arabia that Kerry is expected to deliver -- or even top -- in Riyadh. Watch this site.

Longer form analysis here, on Beacon Reader (subscription) site.

   

In Jordan, IPI Debates Who Is a Journalist As Corporate Media Lashes Out, Spoon-Fed at UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- They gathered in Jordan in the shadow of the Syrian conflict and asked themselves, Who is a journalist?

  It was an opening session of the International Press Institute's "World Congress," and a range of attitudes, from self-serving to open, were on display, if only by twitter. (Tellingly, the event was not live-streamed, but hundreds of tweets from inside the Versailles-like hall conveyed the debate.)

  Corporate for-profit media is in hard times, and so it is important to them to circle the wagons and protect what's left of their monopoly, such the way lawyers and even doctors do, in the developed world.

  But others on the panel took a broader view. Laura Weffer Cifuentes from Venezuela focused on passion, calling journalism a "way of life." John Yearwood said simply that anyone involved in the mass distribution of news is a journalist. 

  What is mass, for example on Twitter? Five thousand followers? Or like some "professional" journalists, less than a thousand?

  Does typing up information spoon-fed by a public figure make you a journalist? At the UN, which Inner City Press covers in detail, does being a pass through from the views or even "scoops" of particular powerful countries' embassies make you a journalist?

  What is clear to Inner City Press is that big corporate mediacannot be the ones to decide who is a journalist. At the UN they have tried it, between Reuters and Agence France Presse and Voice of America - and at least for now it hasfailed. 

  But they continue to try, lobbying UN media accreditation official Stephane Dujarric (himself formerly of corporate media) to deny UN media space to the investigative Press.

  The moderator or main panelist was Jim Clancy from CNN. He recently spoke at the UN, where corporate media have tried to get others thrown out. It was raised to such paragons as the Committee to Protect Journalists, who did nothing. They are funded by the corporate media which tried to eject others. Something must be done.

  From the audience in Amman, a representative of the Ford Foundation (a "partner" of the endeavor) posited that it is the public who decides who is a journalist. But the professionals among them resisted, referring to education or membership in a union. Style over substance, form over function.

  There are acts of journalism, some less opinionated that others. To live tweet a Security Council debate is one thing. To find fresh information is another. To retype spoon-fed propaganda? We're not saying they don't have a place. But they can't define it. Watch this site.