On Gaza, UN Envoy Serry Says Ban Ki-moon "Plans" a Board of Inquiry -- But When & By Whom, With What Scope of Mandate? 2009 Lobbying Echo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 16, more here -- When seven-year UN envoy Robert Serry briefed the UN Security Council about Gaza on September 16, he said “I hope the Council will have the opportunity to make its own position clear." 

   During the conflict and in the three weeks since, the Security Council has not adopted or even voted on any resolution.

   Serry said that Ban Ki-moon "plans to commission a Board of Inquiry to review and investigate a number of incidents involving UN premises." This is vaguely worded, and does not say when the Board of Inquiry would begin, who would chair it, or what the scope of its mandate would be -- a point on which Ban was lobbied in 2009, as exposed by Wikileaks

   Back on August 18, Inner City Press asked Serry if he is leaving his position in October. Video here.

  Serry shook his head, said it is between him and Ban.

  Inner City Press asked about Ban's stated five-year rule for staying in a UN post. Serry replied if that were a rule, he would be in violation. So it is not a rule. But still: October, contract expiring?

  On the destroyed and damaged UNRWA schools, Inner City Press asked Serry if there will be a UN Board of Inquiry as in 2009. Serry said that too would be up to Ban. A month later, Serry referred to a "plan" of Ban.

   In the UN General Assembly meeting about Gaza on August 6, Ban said "attacks against UN premises, along with other suspected breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated."

  So in the 12 days between the two statements, has anything been done? In 2009, Ban was lobbied about his cover-letter to the previous board of inquiry report by Ian Martin; now in 2014, as it made up for it, he accepted free private jet travel from Qatar, with its stake and position in the conflict. Neither is acceptable.

 On the latter, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor came out of the Council after Serry's public briefing and said, among other things, that Qatar has bought campuses of six universities, Harrod's and the PSG football club. He cited the 2022 World Cup, but did not mention Ban accepting the Qatar-funded private jet. He passed out a flier, "Captured Hamas Combat Manuel," which Inner City Press put online here.

 Back on August 6 at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban would at least set up a Board of Inquiry as was done in 2009. (Inner City Press first published the cover-letter, here.)

  Haq wouldn't say if a Board of Inquiry would be set up; he called the decision an internal one. Video here and embedded below. But Wikileaks released documents showing that Ban allowed himself to be lobbied about the 2009 Board of Inquiry report by Ian Martin, including on what should go in "his" cover letter. See here. And this time?

 Update: UN staff have written to Ban, the GA President and this month's Security Council president, Mark Lyall Grant of the UK, asking for accountability. The letter is here. We hope to have more on this.

   In the August 6 UNGA meeting on Gaza, the UN's coordinator on the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry this process “may also need action by the Membership, including the Security Council, at the appropriate time.”

  As the meeting began, a Permanent Representative who has previously complained of General Assembly inaction on Gaza now noted that no outcome was even proposed to the GA meeting, "just talk."

  An hour before the belated General Assembly meeting began, a closed-door consultation was called on the Jordan-drafted proposed Security Council resolution, at the level (mostly) of Permanent Representative. The day before on August 5 it was said that this draft is already "in blue" -- strange, if it is still being negotiated.

  But in front of the General Assembly on August 6, an African diplomat told Inner City Press that the resolution was put "in blue" precisely in order to block any General Assembly action. When the Security Council is seized of a matter, he said, the General Assembly cannot act.

  So what is going on in this ping-pong between UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has still not corrected his August 1 statement that an Israeli Defense Forces solider was "captive" of Hamas, now that the IDF said he was killed in action? Watch this site.

On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."

  Later on August 1, a range of UN officials described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier.  "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.

   On August 2, the IDF said that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action."  

  So on August 4, with no correction issued by the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if there would be any correction, since Ban's statement was used --

  Maestracci cut off the question, "let me stop you right there," and said that the UN tried to get things right with fast moving events. Video here, and embedded below.

  Fine - but when as here the UN was wrong, aren't they supposed to correct it? Maestracci's colleagues have repeatedly said that they correct the record when necessary. Is that the case? What about this case? Watch this site.

   

Palestine's Hanan Ashrawi Tells Inner City Press Wants Occupation to End Within 3 Years, A UN Board of Inquiry

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 2 -- When the State of Palestine's Hanan Ashrawi held a press conference at the UN in New York on September 2, she announced that a team will be meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry on September 3, to make clear the demand for the end of Israel's occupation by “a date certain.”

  Inner City Press asked “which date,” and by which date certain Palestine wants a resolution to be voted on in the UN Security Council. 

  There's been some delay in the Council. Many diplomats have complained to Inner City Press about that, and about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's delay or lack of clarity about setting up a UN Board of Inquiry as in 2009 (when Ban allowed himself to be lobbied.) Inner City Press asked about this as well.

  In her opening remarks Ashrawi said that Israel's unilateral buffer zone of 300 or 500 meters takes most of Gaza's agricultural land. She said “there is no peace process,” that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu reneged on promises he made to John Kerry.

  Later in the press conference, see below, Ashrawi answered both Inner City Press questions. She said the State of Palestine wants the occupation to end within three years. 

  She said a Board of Inquiry should be set up, asking rhetorically, if the UN doesn't even respect its own laws, when it was a deliberate act, the coordinates of the UNRWA schools had repeatedly been given.

Footnote: These and other questions were lumped together and left to the end. That Ashrawi had limited time - she was set to give a speech at 10:30 am -- was understandable. But the UN Correspondents Association and its CBS branded president demanded the first question, and then proceeded to ask two. By the time this set-aside was over, other journalists' questions were all lumped together. The new  Free UN Coalition for Access opposes set asides and particularly their abuse. Since UNCA's Executive Committee tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, and has implemented no reforms since, FUNCA will be opposing set-asides and other ways UNCA now functions as the UN's Censorship Alliance.

   

On Gaza, UNICEF's Pernille Ironside on Mass Unemployment, Says Board of Inquiry Is Up to UNRWA and Ban Ki-moon (Who Was Lobbied in 2009)

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 21 -- When the Gaza field director of UNICEF Pernille Ironside took questions at the UN on August 21, Inner City Press asked her when a Board of Inquiry into the destruction of UN premises like the UNRWA schools will begin. Video here.

Ironside said that will be up to the Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon and UNRWA. Earlier this week Robert Serry told Inner City Press the same thing. But where is the Board of Inquiry? On the one conducted in 2009, Inner City Press reported on how Ban Ki-moon allowed himself to be lobbied and blunted in his cover letter recommendations in the report, later shown in detail by a cable published by Wikileaks.

Does that explain the delay?

Inner City Press also asked Ironside about her statement in her recent Reddit Ask Me Anything that “Gaza's economy has been severely depressed, particularly since the closure of the informal tunnel system with Egypt in July 2013.” Ironside said Gazans are well educated and eager to work, but precluded from doing so; she said the negotiators should take this into account.

Ironside said she previously served the UN in Goma in Eastern Congo, and more recently in Yemen. With the Houthis now in Sana'a, that's something we'd like to hear more about.

The moderator on August 21 began by giving out the first question to Ironside without set-aside, but then allowed the first question to be taken or “reclaimed” by the UN Correspondents Association, a group whose Executive Board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. 

  There have been no reforms; if anything UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance, more aggressively demands the first question at such briefings, and then usually offers up a softball question of the type the UN likes. Then the same media takes a second question. This is something the Free UN Coalition for Access will continue to oppose -- the UN should not promote hierarchy, censorship, set-asides. Watch this site.

   

At UN, Ban Ki-moon's Issues Do Not Include Ukraine, Only 4 Questions, Pre-Selected, Softballs on Gaza

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 12 -- When the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would hold a “press encounter” at noon on August 12, this ensured that there would be no other question and answer briefing for the day.

  But when Ban arrived, his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ban would take only four questions. The first one was pre-selected; to the next, on Ukraine, Ban read a one sentence answer off a note card. This is today's UN.

  On Gaza Ban was not asked in the four questions if he will set up a Board of Inquiry -- Inner City Press said the phrase several times at the end but Ban waved, or waived: he did not answer.

  Ban's three topics did not include the stand-off in Ukraine, including about aid access, an issue on which one might think the UN could play a mediating role. But not this UN.

  Ban began with Iraq, saying nearly exactly the same things as US President Barack Obama. Ban said that “Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abbadi now has the important task of forming a broad-based government acceptable to all components of Iraqi society,” and said “it is imperative that the security forces refrain from intervening in the political process.”

  But Obama and his vice president Joe Biden both spoke with Abbadi, or Abadi as they spell it. Did Ban?

  Of Mount Sinjar, Ban said that “air drops of food and water are reaching some of the trapped people.” 

   But what coordinating role, if any, is the UN playing in these airdrops by the US and UK, as well as in air strikes? No one asked. The first question was set aside for the UN Correspondents Association, proud to play softball soccer with Ban.

  On Gaza Ban made sure to say ““Israel’s duty to protect its citizens from rocket attacks by Hamas and other threats is beyond question.” He added that “I expect accountability for the innocent lives lost and the damage incurred” -- but did not say, and in the pre-selected questions was not asked, if he will set up a Board of Inquiry. 

  When he did in 2009, as revealed in a cable published by Wikileaks, Ban put in his cover letter -- first published by Inner City Press -- exactly what he was told from across First Avenue.

  Ban's third topic, to the surprise of many, was not Ukraine. It was ebola, and named his previous bird flu guru David Nabarro -- a fine man -- the UN's coordinator on ebola. 

 That's a good appointment - but what about Ban's spokespeople refusing to confirm what the UK has announced, that Bernardino Leon is replacing the ousted Tarek Mitri as “Ban's” envoy on Libya?

The UN's non-answering, and selectivity and set-asides, are now opposed by the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which asked Dujarric why there would be no regular briefing (for example on topics like South Sudan). Dujarric called this normal, deference to a four question "encounter." We'll have more on this.

 What about allowing Ban's adviser Ray Chambers to serve on a commission for Chris Christie the governor of New Jersey? What about unanswered irregularities by UNDP and Ban's UNAMA mission and UN Department of Safety and Security? Dujarric said he'd get back with any answers. We are waiting. Watch this site.

   

On Gaza, UN Won't Tell Inner City Press If or When a Ban Ki-moon Board of Inquiry, Let Himself Be Lobbied in 2009

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 6, more here -- In the UN General Assembly meeting about Gaza on August 6, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said "attacks against UN premises, along with other suspected breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated."

 But by whom? At the August 6 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban would at least set up a Board of Inquiry as was done in 2009. (Inner City Press first published the cover-letter, here.)

  Haq wouldn't say if a Board of Inquiry would be set up; he called the decision an internal one. Video here and embedded below. But Wikileaks released documents showing that Ban allowed himself to be lobbied about the 2009 Board of Inquiry report by Ian Martin, including on what should go in "his" cover letter. And this time?

 Update: UN staff have written to Ban, the GA President and this month's Security Council president, Mark Lyall Grant of the UK, asking for accountability. The letter is here. We hope to have more on this.

   In the August 6 UNGA meeting on Gaza, the UN's coordinator on the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry this process “may also need action by the Membership, including the Security Council, at the appropriate time.”

  As the meeting began, a Permanent Representative who has previously complained of General Assembly inaction on Gaza now noted that no outcome was even proposed to the GA meeting, "just talk."

  An hour before the belated General Assembly meeting began, a closed-door consultation was called on the Jordan-drafted proposed Security Council resolution, at the level (mostly) of Permanent Representative. The day before on August 5 it was said that this draft is already "in blue" -- strange, if it is still being negotiated.

  But in front of the General Assembly on August 6, an African diplomat told Inner City Press that the resolution was put "in blue" precisely in order to block any General Assembly action. When the Security Council is seized of a matter, he said, the General Assembly cannot act.

  So what is going on in this ping-pong between UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has still not corrected his August 1 statement that an Israeli Defense Forces solider was "captive" of Hamas, now that the IDF said he was killed in action? Watch this site.

At 10 pm on August 4 in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement on the Gaza ceasefire set to begin three hours later. But he had yet to correct his August 1 statement on the previous ceasefire. Here is the new statement:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the efforts leading to a new ceasefire as announced today.  He commends the parties for committing to this ceasefire of 72 hours, to begin Tuesday, 5 August, at 8 a.m. local time, and calls on them to abide by it.  Until the start of the ceasefire, the parties must exercise the utmost restraint.

"The Secretary-General urges the parties to commence, as soon as possible, talks in Cairo on a durable ceasefire and the underlying issues. In this regard, he welcomes the proactive engagement of the Palestinian delegation under the leadership of President Abbas.  Such talks are the only way to sustainably stop the violence, which has cost far too many lives, and to change the untenable and tragic status quo in Gaza.  The United Nations stands ready to lend its full support to these efforts."

On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."

  Later on August 1, a range of UN officials described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier.  "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.

   On August 2, the IDF said that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action."  

  So on August 4, with no correction issued by the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if there would be any correction, since Ban's statement was used --

  Maestracci cut off the question, "let me stop you right there," and said that the UN tried to get things right with fast moving events. Video here, and embedded below.

  Fine - but when as here the UN was wrong, aren't they supposed to correct it? Maestracci's colleagues have repeatedly said that they correct the record when necessary. Is that the case? What about this case? Watch this site.

At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

  So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?

   And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.

  Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?

  Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?

 It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.

   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).

  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).

  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called the draft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about the different drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.

   

On Kabul Staff Death, "External" Prober Had Conflict of Interest, UN's Unilateral Spin

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unleak6afgh042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22, updated -- The UN's supposedly "external" Board of Inquiry into the murder of Louis Maxwell and other UN staff in Kabul last October was revealed Thursday to have been under the decidedly "internal" leadership of Andrew Hughes, who served as the UN's Police chief from 2007 until, it seems, March 8, 2010. The Board of Inquiry began, without any public notice, in January 2010.

The Board of Inquiry was triggered by cell phone video footage showing Louis Maxwell, long after fighting around the guesthouse was over, being shot and killed, and not by Taliban. The UN knew this since December, but only belatedly and begrudgingly discussed the issue publicly when asked, repeatedly, in April.

At the noon briefing of April 20 in response to Inner City Press' questions, UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky stated "this particular board... was composed of external and internal senior personnel with relevant backgrounds and Afghanistan expertise -- including in security; investigations; and agencies, funds and programmes. It was led by a former senior Australian Federal Police Officer."

While Nesirky emphasized "former Australian Federal Police Officer" -- that is, external to the UN -- since then, Mr. Hughes was named to a UN post by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. In fact, during his service with UN Police, the unit's publication "UN Police Magazine of July 2009"described the unit's work in Afghanistan as "forging trust in uniformed police, establishing faith in national justice systems."

One wonders: isn't a bit of a conflict of interest to have Mr Hughes be responsible for evaluating the actions of the Afghanistan National Police, an entity that Mr Hughes was responsible "forging trust" and "establishing faith" in?

On April 22, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Nesirky basic factual questions about the overlap of Mr. Hughes service as UN Police chief and as "external" leader of the Board of Inquiry, and whether once he left his Police chief post, he was paid by the UN for this "external" work.

Nesirky refused to answer these or other questions, saying that all he would say was a prepared statement that the Board of Inquiry -- disclosed belatedly and only after questions -- was now complete but that Afghanistan and "other relevant stakeholders" must have time to respond before the UN speaks about it. Video here, from Minute 44:26.

But while the UN's Spokesman deflects all questions by saying nothing can be said until later, the Number Two official in the UN Department of Field Support, Tony Banbury, served up the UN's position on the report and on charges they have covered up to Foreign Policy's new blog, "Turtle Bay" [for praise of which, on other stories, see below.]

Inner City Press asked Nesirky when Banbury would come to answer questions, since he had spoken on the record to Turtle Bay. Nesirky responded that Inner City Press had send written questions to Banbury "on deadline" - which have remained unanswered six hours later, including these:

Will the UN identify the probe's other members?

Were other UN departments informed of the composition of the board prior to its commencement of work, and invited to participate, or was the Board just selected and appointed by DPKO/DFS?

Can the UN confirm Ban Ki Moon's prior statement that Afghan police failed to respond to the guesthouse for 90 minutes?

Was Louis Maxwell's weapon retrieved by the UN, and does the UN have it in its possession?

Was the killer of Louis Maxwell ever identified or apprehended? Where is he now?

Thursday at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked "where is Mr. Banbury today," since he did not respond to these written questions about his on the record claims. Neskiry would not answer.

In fact, in what a number of reporters viewed as retaliation, Nesirky tried to deny Inner City Press to right to ask any other questions, cutting off any follow up and saying "one more question," about a movie. As Inner City Press put forward a question, Nesirky closed his binder and stood. Video here, from Minute 59:25. The question was about Thailand and requests made to the UN by the protesters. Nesirky relented and read out another statement, dodged a question on Sri Lanka and was gone. And so it goes at the UN.

Footnote: Inner City Press does not like to disparage other media, particularly one which like the writer of Turtle Bay has done good work at and on the UN, on OIOS and many other topics. While Turtle Bay says it was offered the Banbury briefing and had no choice but to take it, it is noteworthy that Banbury and UN thought this "blog" was the best venue to unilaterally put out their side of the story.

We put "blog" in quotes, including to follow UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky's statements April 21 against what Inner City Press "put on [its] blog" about the UN covering up. Is this 2010, the UN, using one blog against another?

One might for example note in blog-style that Banbury is most famous of late for saying that news of three rapes in camps in Haiti "almost elated me," and then issuing a convoluted clarification later. Now he speaks unilaterally and takes no questions. "Like Tiger Woods' first press conference," as one reporter put it. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unleak6afgh042210.html

UN Admits Afghan 'Friendly Fire' May Have Killed US Staffer, US Mission Dodges

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive
www.innercitypress.com/unleak3afgh041510.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 15 -- The UN covered up information that Afghan national forces killed its staff member Louis Maxwell, and then when asked by Inner City Press, belatedly disclosed an FBI investigation and said that "the preliminary conclusions of the mission's investigation raised the disturbing possibility that a specific UN staff member may have died due to “friendly fire”, caused directly by responding Afghan security personnel" -- to another media, not the one which asked.

Management of information is one thing, but cover up and lies are another.

On April 14, based on a tip from a UN source in Afghanistan, Inner City Press asked about the death of UN staff member Louis Maxwell, a U.S. citizen, outside the UN's Kabul guesthouse on October 28, 2009. Given time to response, the UN send Inner City Press an email that the case was subject to a Board of Inquiry and FBI investigation, and that therefore there would be no more comment.

On April 15, Inner City Press asked again, including when the Board of Inquiry began, and why the UN had not retracted Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 2009 statements that the Taliban were responsible for Louis Maxwell's murder. UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press to "be careful" what words it used, and later said only that the Board of Inquiry began in January.

Nesirky's Associate Farhan Haq, however, issued a quote to another media -- which had not asked any questions at the UN's noon briefing -- that

"The preliminary conclusions of the mission's investigation raised the disturbing possibility that a specific UN staff member may have died due to 'friendly fire,' caused directly by responding Afghan security personnel. Once the BOI is finalized, we will share our findings with the Government of Afghanistan and if warranted we will ask for a thorough investigation surrounding the death of this UN employee and the circumstances of the deaths of the other UN employees."

One questions why the UN didn't disclose this "disturbing possibility" when it became aware of it, and then refused to disclosed it to accredited media which asked about it in open UN noon briefing sessions. This UN goes lower and lower every day.

Meanwhile, Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN

This is a request for comment on newly emerged information about the death in Afghanistan on October 28, 2009 of U.S. citizen Louis Maxwell.

At the time, Ambassador Rice said

I condemn in the strongest terms the brutal and cowardly attack in Kabul today on United Nations workers and members of the Afghan National Security Forces. An American citizen was among those who lost their lives. My heartfelt condolences and sympathies go out to the families and friends of all of the victims.

The United Nations has been doing vital work for the Afghan people for more than fifty years. The United States strongly supports the leadership and staff of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan as they work bravely each day under incredibly difficult circumstances, and we are grateful to the Afghan National Security Forces for their commitment and sacrifice.

The international community stands together in its commitment to defeat those extremists seeking to halt democratic progress in Afghanistan. The United States stands firmly with the people of Afghanistan as they prepare for the November 7 presidential runoff elections.

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/131010.htm

Yesterday, after I asked a question at the noon briefing, the UN Spokesperson's office sent me this

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Your questions on Louis Maxwell
To: Inner City Press

(further response on Louis Maxwell)

The United Nations has followed due process in investigating the death of staff in Afghanistan last October by instituting a Board of Inquiry after an initial fact-finding by staff in Kabul and New York. The United Nations has been in contact with the responsible Afghan authorities in the course of its inquiries. The Board will submit its report in due course. Further actions by the United Nations will depend on its findings. The specific circumstances in which Louis Maxwell died are currently being investigated and it would be premature to comment further at this stage.

The United Nations is also cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its inquiries into the incident. The United Nations has briefed the Maxwell family on the progress of its initial inquiries and is determined to support the family.

Questions: when did the US State Dept and, separately, Amb. Rice become aware of a credible alternative factual explanation of the attack and death, and of the US FBI's involvement in investigating this alternative explanation?

Why was Amb Rice's statement not amended at that time?

Is the statement going to be amended or supplemented now?

While the US Mission to the UN declined to respond in writing, as part of a telephone conversation the Spokesman of the US Mission, Mark Kornblau, provide this on the record response:

"As the UN Spokesman noted yesterday, there are ongoing investigations by the UN and FBI. It would be premature for us to comment at this time."

Some note that given the political situation between the Obama Administration and Hamid Karzai, the disclosure of a the murder of a U.S. citizen by Afghan national forces under Karzai's command would be inconvenient, to say the least. Asked about this concern, the US Mission to the UN had no on the record comment. Watch this site.

Footnote: the UN and US State Department might want to start changing their close to the chest communications strategy on this -- Inner City Press' Kabul sources say that ABC News has a crew on the ground now investigating Louis Maxwell's murder.

From the April 15 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: After yesterday’s noon briefing, your office issued a statement about the situation in Afghanistan -- the deaths of the UN staff, including Louis Maxwell -- saying, among other things, that “the United Nations is cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in its inquiries into this incident”. Because at times there have been some issues around UN cooperation with United States law enforcement, including in this building -- whether they have jurisdiction to come into the building, whether evidence is shared -- can you say when this cooperation began, of what it consisted, and ultimately isn’t it the UN’s responsibility? Who is leading the charge to find out who, in fact, killed these four UN staff members?

Spokesperson Nesirky: There is a Board of Inquiry, as I think you know. The United Nations instituted this Board of Inquiry after initial fact-finding by staff in Kabul and New York. The United Nations has been in contact with the responsible Afghan authorities in the course of its inquiries. The Board will submit its report in due course. Any further actions by the United Nations will depend on the findings, and it would be premature at this point to comment further.

Inner City Press: Like you had said, “as you were aware”, but I was not aware until yesterday afternoon that there was a Board of Inquiry.

Spokesperson: That is why you were aware, because you were told yesterday afternoon.

Inner City Press: Sure. Mr. Ban said clearly at the stakeout that this was an attack by the Taliban that had done it. Once the UN became enough aware that they created this Board of Inquiry, was there any thought given to saying “things are not as we first presented them”? And secondarily, on these boards of inquiry, how many of them are there? Are there just UN staff on it? Is it an outside Board of Inquiry? How many, I mean…

Spokesperson: There is a standard way to institute a board of inquiry, and I am sure that you are familiar with that. You have been here far longer than I have. The UN takes extremely seriously any incident which results in the loss of life in whatever circumstances of a UN staff member, and will investigate it thoroughly. And clearly the UN, as I mentioned, has been cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its inquiries into the incident. As we have also mentioned -- and I think you need to take that into account, too -- the United Nations has been briefing the family of Mr. Maxwell on its initial inquiries and will continue to support the family.

Inner City Press: Thanks for saying that, but this Board of Inquiry, you are saying, whenever staff are killed, the UN moves to this. Was this Board of Inquiry set up at the time that these five staff members were murdered? Or was it created at some later date, and what triggered its creation?

Spokesperson: Matthew, I should be very careful in the words that you are using. There is a Board of Inquiry and there is an investigation going on that involves the FBI. And the Afghan authorities are also investigating this, and it is part of -- as I mentioned earlier in a different context -- due process when you are investigating. Be very careful what words you are using.

Inner City Press: Is there any question… it is a question of who did the murder?

Spokesperson: There is an investigation going on.

Inner City Press: Right. Is it a new investigation? This took place in October and we are now in April. Has it been going on since October? I will just leave it at that. When was the date that this Board of Inquiry was instituted, since it is such a well known procedure how these things are done? When was it done? When was this created?

Spokesperson: I will let you know.

[The Spokesperson later added that, in January, the United Nations established a high-level Board of Inquiry to establish the facts and look for lessons learned.]

"Lessons learned," indeed. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unleak3afgh041510.html