UNcensored 4: UN Threw Press Into Street 1 Year Ago, BuzzFeed Chimed In, Of Gallach & Cholera

By Matthew Russell Lee, 4th in a Series

UNITED NATIONS, February 10 – It was Ban Ki-moon's UN which used eight security officers to throw me onto First Avenue, without resistance, and break my laptop. But it was Ban's head of communications who had signed the letter. So I decided that I needed to try to speak with her. 

   But being Banned from the UN, how to do it? I'd noticed an email from UNESCO, some event in the lobby with Irina Bokova, Ban's wannabe successor. I RSVP-ed then walked from the 26th Street NY Public Library to the UN at dusk.

  At the entrance stood a woman from UNESCO. A UN security officer came closer. They checked the list: there was my name, Matthew Russell Lee. The security officer shrugged. 

I went through the metal detector and on into the lobby, with its checkerboard floor and  and table stacked high with crackers, cheese and fruit. Bokova was a no-show. But I saw Gallach talking with Edmond Mulet, Ban's chief of staff who had overseen the UN's introduction of cholera to Haiti while Ban's envoy there, and had denied it since. It was time to make my move.

 “Ms Gallach,” I began. “I think we got off on the wrong foot.”

   She gave a fake-seeming smile, gesturing for her factotum Darrin Farrant to come over. Him, I knew: he'd been in my meetings with Gallach's predecessor Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal, including when Launsky, out of character, ordered me to remove from the door to my office the Free UN Coalition for Access sign. This didn't bode well.

   With Darrin Farrant as a witness, Gallach said “there are rules and they have to be followed.”

“What rule did I break?”

This seemed to stump her. You know, she said, I'm sure you know.

But I don't. I was just trying to cover a meeting in the UN Press Briefing Room--

I know, Gallach cut in, just like you stood outside the UNCA ball down on Wall Street in December.

Now I remembered seeing her there, even exchanging a few lines. “You see?,” I told her. “It's nothing new. I think UNCA is involved in the UN corruption scandal.”

Gallach rolled her eyes. I felt even my chance to plead slipping away.

Look, I'm a simple person, I told her. I'm willing to do penance, physical penance. I could clean the UN basement, or move furniture around. I just need full access back to do my job.

You should have thought of that before, she said smugly.

“When?” I asked. “Before I went into the UN Press Briefing Room?”

Mulet came back over and shepherded Gallach away. I went to where I'd set up my laptop and searched again on line. The BuzzFeed piecewas up, quoting unnamed UNCA officials that I'd tried to spy on their meeting. Spying on journalists? In the UN Press Briefing Room? It still seemed so absurd to me that I still thought it could quickly be turned around. But that was not to be. The reporting on corruption hit a nerve. And now they would strike back with impunity. There is no law at the UN. The First Amendment stops at First Avenue.

UN Censorship Alliance Belatedly Comments, That Its Giampaolo Pioli Rules UN Press Room and Can Get Others Kicked Out

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 23 -- After Inner City Press was summarily ejected from the UN, which it has covered for ten years, on February 19, the ostensibly deciding official Cristina Gallach told no less than Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos Horta that Inner City Press would still be able to cover the UN.

She didn't disclose how curtailed Inner City Press' access would be under this extortionate "offer." This UN Director of Communications was not mentioned, yet, in the February 22 BuzzFeed piece, here - despite being the signer of the ouster order without even having sought or allowed Inner City Press side of the story.

 That piece said the UNCA, rather than explain why it sought to get the Press thrown out, would be putting out a statement later. Well here it is: "UNCA President Giampaolo Pioli made clear at the start of the meeting that it was a closed meeting for UNCA members only."

 This is a laughable. It is not for Giampaolo Pioli, more of a landlord than a journalist, to declare any event in the UN Press Briefing Room to be "closed."

 As Inner City Press said on January 29, and before that when with Dujarric also involved Francois Hollande tried to close the UN Press Briefing Room to all but the French traveling press, the UN Press Briefing Room is presumptively open to all journalists. On January 29, there was no notice in the UN Journal of a closed meeting, nor any sign on the door.

 So essentially, Cristina Gallach is ousting Inner City Press because it didn't obey an order by Giampaolo Pioli. How pathetic.

  When Inner City Press came to the UN on Monday morning, with another journalist there to sign Inner City Press in as a guest, UN Security said, “You are Banned from the UN.”  Audio here.

  Inner City Press left the UN pass office, and set up shop in the Isaiah plowshares park across from the UN. Several Permanent Representatives, at least two Under Secretaries General (the same rank as Gallach) and many staff came to express outrage at the UN's censorship.

 But in the UN Press Briefing Room, which was "lent" to the UN Correspondents (or Corruption) Association back on January 29, the reaction was different.

 In an embarrassing colloquy, long time UNCA board member Masood Haider asked Spokesman Dujarric about "the blogger Matthew Lee" who has been "spewing on the Internet reports whether false or not."Vine here; Video here; UN transcript here:

UNCA Question:  Stéphane, can you please tell us about the blogger, Mr. Matthew Lee, who has been very active on the internet spewing all kinds of reports, whether false or not?  What is the status now?

Spokesman:  Mr. Lee has available to him a non-resident pass for four months and which, last I heard, he had not claimed, but that's what he has available.  I know there were reports that we had “seized his files”.  Completely untrue.  His office remains untouched.  And we await him to return so he can vacate his office.  Thank you.

  Yeah - thank you for the set-up question to put propaganda in to the UN record. 

On February 19 Inner City Press asked to get its passport and most important files but was pushed out onto First Avenue by UN Security Deputy Chief Michael McNulty without either. That's not seized? That's OK?

And the extortionate offer - no access unless with much reduced rights - is entirely disproportionate to the non-existent "crimes," which was to seek to cover an event in this same UN Press Briefing Room, by UNCA which took money from indicted Ng Lap Seng's and Frank Lorenzo's South South News then gave Ng Lap Seng a photo op with Ban Ki-moon.

  UNCA President Giampaolo was there, leaving first from the February 22 Press-less press conference; another UNCA board member slapped Dujarric on the back. Great job!

  Bloggers are, of course, hacked to death in Bangladesh, a country on whose free press record USG Gallach never even replied to a detailed email from the Free UN Coalition for Access, for protection for a Bangladeshi journalist then in the UN. Spewing indeed.

 Dujarric took the opportunity to deny that the UN had seized Inner City Press' files -- the reality is, when Inner City Press asked on February 19 to take the most important of them, and its passport, it was denied by UN Security. On February 22, UN Security said Inner City Press is Banned from all UN premises.

  Dujarric said, as if it's ok, that Inner City Press is being "offered" much reduced access, for four months. But Inner City Press did nothing wrong, and the "investigation" by Gallach which led to its ouster did not involve a single conversation with or reaching out to Inner City Press.

  Any reduced access to loss of office space -- which Masood Haider, who hardly writes articles, has, and UNCA President Giampaolo Pioli has, a private office, while writing about Morgan Freeman -- is unfair and is to cast a chill of freedom of the press. No staged colloquy can hide that. We'll have more on this.

  Later, after being told to leave even the UN Pass office, a UN Under Secretary General told Inner City Press Gallach had told other USGs that Inner City Press was in fact in the building - that AFTER Inner City Press was told by UN Security, twice, that it is banned from all UN premises and was told to leave the UN Pass office.

 Ban Ki-moon's Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who'd also told those who questioned him that Inner City Press could end and cover “his” briefing on Monday.

  False. UN Security then said, you cannot wait in the pass office, you are banned from all UN premises. Trying to cover the UN Security Council meeting on Syria from the Isaiah plowshares park across from the UN, various Ambassadors came to say they were appalled. But Gallach's office has told then, nothing will be done.

  This is disgusting censorship by an increasingly corrupt UN.

As Inner City Press at the UN pursues unfolding stories of corruption, peacekeepers committing rapes in the Central African Republic, UN inaction in Burundi, South Sudan and Yemen, on February 19 with two hours notice UN Under Secretary General Cristina Gallach ordered Inner City Press to be ousted. Letter here.

   On the evening of February 19, UN Security Deputy Chief Michael McNulty, who refused to provide his name (audio), pushed Inner City Press out onto First Avenue (audio), having cut off its Periscope video livestream (video) and not allowed it to get its files, coat or passport from its longtime shared office. Gallach wants the office back, to retaliate and so the UN Correspondents Association can, in essence, sell the UN space just as it sells access to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  On February 20, Inner City Press posed four questions to Dujarric and his deputy Farhan Haq, with a copy to Gallach --which 24 hours later have not been answered or even acknowledged (while both Dujarric and Gallach were wildly spinning to those who contacted them, includingNobel Laureate Jose Ramos Horta, see here, who was told there was no problem taking over Inner City Press' office and undermining its ability to report, edit videos, conduct interviews. There is a big problem. Here are the questions:

"Please state the status and condition of all of my papers and property in my office, Room S-303A, including investigative papers, communications from sources including whistleblowers and my passport and when I will have the access to them that I was denied on February 19 and since.

Please state when the Resident Correspondent UN pass I have had for years, but which was torn off my neck on Feb 19, will be returned, in connection with 1, above, and the UNSC meeting(s) and UN Noon Briefing on Monday February 22.

Please state and explain the role of the Office of the Spokesperson of the Secretary General in the deprivations in 1 and 2, above.

Finally, for now, please state the Secretary-General's position on UN Security Deputy McNulty on February 19 threatening twice to have me “handed over to NYPD” (including the concomitant acceptance by the UN of the NYPD's jurisdiction), of UN Security officers grabbing my phone which was live-broadcasting Periscope video at the UN Security Council stakeout and turning it off.

I have other questions but these are most pressing, for immediate answer."

  And as yet, 42 hours later, no answer. Watch this site.

  While Inner City Press was writing up a UN Security Council meeting on Syria that went into the evening, and Periscope broadcasting, UN Security guards walked up, grabbed Inner City Press' laptop, blocked its Periscope camera and turned off the livestream. Video here.

  Then eight UN Security officers led by Deputy Chief McNulty tore off Inner City Press' UN ID badge and carted off Inner City Press' laptop and camera, returning these by throwing them on the sidewalk of First Avenue. Audio here.

 They did not allow Inner City Press to get coat or sweater, or the files in its office. No provision was made for this.

  The ejection letter was signed by the Under Secretary General for Public Information Cristina Galach of Spain but ultimately Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is in charge. Ban and his chief of staff Edmond Mulet and Deputy SG Jan Eliasson were all written to with details as this took place.

  USG Gallach's office, Darrin Farrant in charge, merely "took note" of questions about and criticism of the lack of due process. Gallach did not respond to email, even from Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta, here.

  When Inner City Press was thrown out onto First Avenue, standing waiting, laughing and filming, was Voice of America's Margaret Besheer and another board member of the UN Correspondents Association, whose president Giampaoli Pioli told Inner City Press if it didn't remove a (truthful) article about his screening of a war crimes denial film for a tenant of his, Sri Lanka's then ambassador Palitha Kohona, he would get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN.

  But who is running this asylum? Ban Ki-moon, his spokesman also involved Stephane Dujarric (who threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room on January 29, also trying to turn off ICP's Periscoping phone), and, some surmise, some who don't like Inner City Press' questions. We'll have more on this.

  The pretext was Inner City Press three weeks earlier seeking to cover a meeting in the UN Press Briefing Room by an organization which has taken money from now indicted Ng Lap Seng and Frank Lorenzo's South SOuth News, then gave Ng Lap Seng a photo op with Ban.

(As Inner City Press reported, Gallach attended the South South Awards with Frank Lorenzo, photo here, just before his indictment.  She should have been recused from any decision-making on this.)

  UN Security demanded ICP's pass - and later tore it off.

Inner City Press Asks UN for Update on Rape of Aid Worker in Bentiu, None, "Stop Asking," UN Spox Tells ICP on World Humanitarian Day

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 19 -- When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it a year ago, the UN and UNICEF did nothing, until UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked to fire the whistleblower in March of this year.  Inner City Press asked UNICEF about its role, here.

After BuzzFeed's Jina Moore documented that when an aid worker was allegedly raped inside the UN's Bentiu "Protection of Civilians" site in South Sudan, the UN system did little to nothing -- until on July 27, intranscribing its answer to Inner City Press' questions, the UN added in a parenthetical that Nobert did not work for the UN.

 So on August 19, World Humanitarian Day, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Vannina Maestracci for an update, if anything was done,video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: about the aid worker that was raped in a Bentiu camp in South Sudan.  And much was said from this podium of what the UN system including the agency which turned out to be UNICEF was doing.  And the victim… the alleged victim herself has asked… has tweeted at your office and Inner City Press asking what has happened since?  And since it’s Humanitarian Day, it seems like the right time to ask.  Are you aware of any steps taken since this was reported in Buzzfeed to get to the bottom of the rape of this aid worker working in the Bentiu camp of the UN?

Associate Spokesperson:  I’m not aware, but it might just be me so don’t, it might just be because I was on, working on something else.  So I’ll… okay?

Inner City Press: Should I do it now or can I do it late—

Associate Spokesperson:  Are you going to stop asking questions?

  Well, no - Inner City Press is NOT going to stop asking questions.

  Still, shouldn't the UN provide some protection and accountability for aid workers in the employ of non-governmental organizations funded by the UN system, particularly inside UN "protection" camps like that in Bentiu?

 On July 28, Inner City Press asked the UN's top humanitarian, Emergency Relief Coodinatory Stephen O'Brien, about the case. Video here. O'Brien said he had recently been in the Bentiu camp but, not speaking specifically of the case he said he did not know, to his credit he said that facts should be looked into and investigated. But will they be?

  Minutes later Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric why such an investigation was not done in this case -- did it turn on the fact that the alleged victim did not work for the UN system but for a UN fundee? Video here.

   The UN to its July 27 transcript added, "[The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.]" Compare to actual briefing, video here.

  She worked for Nonviolent Peaceforce, which received a $1 million grant from UNICEF for child protection in South Sudan, click here for that.

  Not only did UN spokesman Dujarric refuse to identify UNICEF, run by former US government official Anthony Lake, as the UN agency which did not act on the alleged rape, except to provide "contact information" of the contractor -- UNICEF, which was in charge of the bore hole drilling in which the alleged rapist was engaged, has not directly responded on the scandal.

   Nonviolent Peaceforce, meanwhile, has simply published anadvertisement for a(nother) "Senior Programme Manager, Nonviolent Peaceforce, South Sudan," here.

  The alleged rapist, named as Amed Asmail, seems to also be called Ahmad Ismail, whose Facebook page here pictures him playing music,listing in his bio working with "South Sudan -Life For Construction."

 Inner City Press on July 27 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what accountability there is when UN agency personnel themselves are raped. Video here, and embedded below.

  Dujarric began by calling it a horrendous act - then said that what the UN system did was give the victim the contact information of the contractor. But, Inner City Press asked, since Sudan-based Life for Construction has let the alleged rapist Amed Asmail's contract expire, how will this "contact information" help the victim?

  Dujarric declined to even identify the agency, which used public funds to contract for water bore holes for the Bentiu camp; when Inner City Press asked if it was UNICEF or IOM, he cut the question off. Video here.

  What we can report is that UNICEF, nearly always in charge of the water cluster for the UN system, said on its website in April 2014, here, that UNICEF

"has maintained staff in Bentiu and is rapidly responding to the urgent needs, drilling new boreholes for water, and today flying in parts for the construction of new latrines. However, UNICEF said it remains hindered by a lack of funding and access."

  UNICEF also sat on reports of the sexual abuse of children in Central African Republic; we'll have more on this.


For now, here's this, and now UN's transcript of briefing - a [parenthetical] was later added, highlighted below in bold:

Question:  Sure.  Questions on Burundi but I wanted to ask you something, you may have anticipated coming.  It was a story which was on Friday on BuzzFeed, quite detailed, about an aid worker in the UNMISS camp (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) in Bentiu, who alleges that she was raped by a UN vendor or contractor working for Life For Construction.  Basically the gist of the article is that the UN did absolutely nothing and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) said they could not investigate and there are no recording or reports of sexual abuse or exploitation by vendors anywhere in the UN, DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) or other systems.  So I wanted to know, what is your response to it?  What does the UN owe people in its protection of civilian camps if they are raped there, and why was nothing done in this case?

     Spokesman:  Well, I think this was clearly a horrendous act and I think people who work, aid workers, humanitarian workers, who work within UN camps are owed the best possible protection, that's clear.  In this particular case, the agency for which Ms. Nobert worked is greatly concerned for the well-being and safety and security of all those working with it to deliver humanitarian assistance anywhere in the world and it took these particular allegations very seriously.  [The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.] When it became clear that the person accused of the attack on Ms. Nobert was, in fact, an employee of a company hired to undertake work for the agency and not an UN staff member, the agency concluded it was not a position to conduct an investigation into the alleged actions of that person itself.  All of the agencies private contractors are aware of the high standard of conduct the agency accepts from their staff and the agency gave Ms. Nobert the contact details of the employer of the person accused of attacking her, so that she could take her complaint directly to the company.  The agency also instructed the company to remove the individual immediately from any project involving the agency.  

However, given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations, the agency had to respect both the need for Ms. Nobert to raise her very serious complaint with those who can take actions and the rights of the accused person for due process.  It therefore did not share the specific nature of the complaint with the contractor, allowing Ms. Nobert to decide on how and when she wanted to do that.

The agency concerned believes that in this complex circumstance it did the best it could to support Ms. Nobert, to take her complaint forward.  I think it's clear that, in any of these cases, we also need to take a look how we responded and how we can do better in responding to horrendous cases like this one.

     Question:  Thus seems to imply… obviously, Life for Construction, they have already terminated the individual, so there is no more relationship between them. So is there… what is the UN saying is the accountability mechanism for this alleged rape?  And, two, you keep saying the agency. Was the agency in charge of boring water holes in the Bentiu camp?  Was it UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), was it IOM (International Organization for Migration)?  Which agency are you speaking of?

     Spokesman:  As the article makes clear, Ms. Nobert specifically requested the agencies she had contacts with shall not be named and we will respect her wishes.

     Question:  Who is in charge of boring the water holes?

     Spokesman:  That is what I have to share with you and, if I have, more I will share with you. 

See above - and InnerCityPress.com

   

Inner City Press Asks UN OCHA's O'Brien of Alleged Rape of Aid Worker in Bentiu, South Sunda, He Says Should Be Looked Into

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 -- When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it a year ago, the UN and UNICEF did nothing, until UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked to fire the whistleblower in March of this year.  Inner City Press asked UNICEF about its role, here.

Now after BuzzFeed's Jina Moore has documented that when an aid worker was allegedly raped inside the UN's Bentiu "Protection of Civilians" site in South Sudan, the UN system did little to nothing -- until on July 27, in transcribing its answer to Inner City Press' questions, the UN added in a parenthetical that Nobert did not work for the UN.

  Still, shouldn't the UN provide some protection and accountability for aid workers in the employ of non-governmental organizations funded by the UN system, particularly inside UN "protection" camps like that in Bentiu?

 On July 28, Inner City Press asked the UN's top humanitarian, Emergency Relief Coodinator Stephen O'Brien, about the case. Video here. O'Brien said he had recently been in the Bentiu camp but, not speaking specifically of the case he said he did not know, to his credit he said that facts should be looked into and investigated. But will they be?

  Minutes later Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric why such an investigation was not done in this case -- did it turn on the fact that the alleged victim did not work for the UN system but for a UN fundee? Video here.

   The UN to its July 27 transcript added, "[The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.]" Compare to actual briefing, video here.

  She worked for Nonviolent Peaceforce, which received a $1 million grant from UNICEF for child protection in South Sudan, click here for that.

  Not only did UN spokesman Dujarric refuse to identify UNICEF, run by former US government official Anthony Lake, as the UN agency which did not act on the alleged rape, except to provide "contact information" of the contractor -- UNICEF, which was in charge of the bore hole drilling in which the alleged rapist was engaged, has not directly responded on the scandal.

   Nonviolent Peaceforce, meanwhile, has simply published anadvertisement for a(nother) "Senior Programme Manager, Nonviolent Peaceforce, South Sudan," here.

  The alleged rapist, named as Amed Asmail, seems to also be called Ahmad Ismail, whose Facebook page here pictures him playing music,listing in his bio working with "South Sudan -Life For Construction."

 Inner City Press on July 27 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what accountability there is when UN agency personnel themselves are raped. Video here, and embedded below.

  Dujarric began by calling it a horrendous act - then said that what the UN system did was give the victim the contact information of the contractor. But, Inner City Press asked, since Sudan-based Life for Construction has let the alleged rapist Amed Asmail's contract expire, how will this "contact information" help the victim?

  Dujarric declined to even identify the agency, which used public funds to contract for water bore holes for the Bentiu camp; when Inner City Press asked if it was UNICEF or IOM, he cut the question off. Video here.

  What we can report is that UNICEF, nearly always in charge of the water cluster for the UN system, said on its website in April 2014, here, that UNICEF

"has maintained staff in Bentiu and is rapidly responding to the urgent needs, drilling new boreholes for water, and today flying in parts for the construction of new latrines. However, UNICEF said it remains hindered by a lack of funding and access."

  UNICEF also sat on reports of the sexual abuse of children in Central African Republic; we'll have more on this.


For now, here's this, and now UN's transcript of briefing - a [parenthetical] was later added, highlighted below in bold:

Question:  Sure.  Questions on Burundi but I wanted to ask you something, you may have anticipated coming.  It was a story which was on Friday on BuzzFeed, quite detailed, about an aid worker in the UNMISS camp (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) in Bentiu, who alleges that she was raped by a UN vendor or contractor working for Life For Construction.  Basically the gist of the article is that the UN did absolutely nothing and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) said they could not investigate and there are no recording or reports of sexual abuse or exploitation by vendors anywhere in the UN, DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) or other systems.  So I wanted to know, what is your response to it?  What does the UN owe people in its protection of civilian camps if they are raped there, and why was nothing done in this case?

     Spokesman:  Well, I think this was clearly a horrendous act and I think people who work, aid workers, humanitarian workers, who work within UN camps are owed the best possible protection, that's clear.  In this particular case, the agency for which Ms. Nobert worked is greatly concerned for the well-being and safety and security of all those working with it to deliver humanitarian assistance anywhere in the world and it took these particular allegations very seriously.  [The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.] When it became clear that the person accused of the attack on Ms. Nobert was, in fact, an employee of a company hired to undertake work for the agency and not an UN staff member, the agency concluded it was not a position to conduct an investigation into the alleged actions of that person itself.  All of the agencies private contractors are aware of the high standard of conduct the agency accepts from their staff and the agency gave Ms. Nobert the contact details of the employer of the person accused of attacking her, so that she could take her complaint directly to the company.  The agency also instructed the company to remove the individual immediately from any project involving the agency.  

However, given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations, the agency had to respect both the need for Ms. Nobert to raise her very serious complaint with those who can take actions and the rights of the accused person for due process.  It therefore did not share the specific nature of the complaint with the contractor, allowing Ms. Nobert to decide on how and when she wanted to do that.

The agency concerned believes that in this complex circumstance it did the best it could to support Ms. Nobert, to take her complaint forward.  I think it's clear that, in any of these cases, we also need to take a look how we responded and how we can do better in responding to horrendous cases like this one.

     Question:  Thus seems to imply… obviously, Life for Construction, they have already terminated the individual, so there is no more relationship between them. So is there… what is the UN saying is the accountability mechanism for this alleged rape?  And, two, you keep saying the agency. Was the agency in charge of boring water holes in the Bentiu camp?  Was it UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), was it IOM (International Organization for Migration)?  Which agency are you speaking of?

     Spokesman:  As the article makes clear, Ms. Nobert specifically requested the agencies she had contacts with shall not be named and we will respect her wishes.

     Question:  Who is in charge of boring the water holes?

     Spokesman:  That is what I have to share with you and, if I have, more I will share with you. 

See above - and InnerCityPress.com

   

UN Merely Gave Contact Information of Contractor After Aid Worker Raped in South Sudan Camp, Inner City Press Asked, "Which UN Agency?"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 27, updated -- When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it a year ago, the UN did nothing, until it tried to fire a whistleblower in March of this year. Now BuzzFeed's Jina Moore has documented that when UN agency aid worker Megan Nobert was allegedly raped inside the UN's Bentiu "Protection of Civilians" site in South Sudan, the UN did little to nothing.

 Inner City Press on July 27 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what accountability there is when UN agency personnel themselves are raped. Video here, and embedded below.

  Dujarric began by calling it a horrendous act - then said that what the UN system did was give the victim the contact information of the contractor. But, Inner City Press asked, since Sudan-based Life for Construction has let the alleged rapist Amed Asmail's contract expire, how will this "contact information" help the victim? Dujarric declined to even identify the agency, which used public funds to contract for water bore holes for the Bentiu camp; when Inner City Press asked if it was UNICEF or IOM, he cut the question off. Video here.

  What we can report is that UNICEF, nearly always in charge of the water cluster for the UN system, said on its website in April 2014, here, that UNICEF

"has maintained staff in Bentiu and is rapidly responding to the urgent needs, drilling new boreholes for water, and today flying in parts for the construction of new latrines. However, UNICEF said it remains hindered by a lack of funding and access."

  UNICEF also sat on reports of the sexual abuse of children in Central African Republic; we'll have more on this.


For now, here's this, and now UN's transcript of briefing:

Question:  Sure.  Questions on Burundi but I wanted to ask you something, you may have anticipated coming.  It was a story which was on Friday on BuzzFeed, quite detailed, about an aid worker in the UNMISS camp (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) in Bentiu, who alleges that she was raped by a UN vendor or contractor working for Life For Construction.  Basically the gist of the article is that the UN did absolutely nothing and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) said they could not investigate and there are no recording or reports of sexual abuse or exploitation by vendors anywhere in the UN, DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) or other systems.  So I wanted to know, what is your response to it?  What does the UN owe people in its protection of civilian camps if they are raped there, and why was nothing done in this case?

     Spokesman:  Well, I think this was clearly a horrendous act and I think people who work, aid workers, humanitarian workers, who work within UN camps are owed the best possible protection, that's clear.  In this particular case, the agency for which Ms. Nobert worked is greatly concerned for the well-being and safety and security of all those working with it to deliver humanitarian assistance anywhere in the world and it took these particular allegations very seriously.  When it became clear that the person accused of the attack on Ms. Nobert was, in fact, an employee of a company hired to undertake work for the agency and not an UN staff member, the agency concluded it was not a position to conduct an investigation into the alleged actions of that person itself.  All of the agencies private contractors are aware of the high standard of conduct the agency accepts from their staff and the agency gave Ms. Nobert the contact details of the employer of the person accused of attacking her, so that she could take her complaint directly to the company.  The agency also instructed the company to remove the individual immediately from any project involving the agency.  

However, given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations, the agency had to respect both the need for Ms. Nobert to raise her very serious complaint with those who can take actions and the rights of the accused person for due process.  It therefore did not share the specific nature of the complaint with the contractor, allowing Ms. Nobert to decide on how and when she wanted to do that.

The agency concerned believes that in this complex circumstance it did the best it could to support Ms. Nobert, to take her complaint forward.  I think it's clear that, in any of these cases, we also need to take a look how we responded and how we can do better in responding to horrendous cases like this one.

     Question:  Thus seems to imply… obviously, Life for Construction, they have already terminated the individual, so there is no more relationship between them. So is there… what is the UN saying is the accountability mechanism for this alleged rape?  And, two, you keep saying the agency. Was the agency in charge of boring water holes in the Bentiu camp?  Was it UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), was it IOM (International Organization for Migration)?  Which agency are you speaking of?

     Spokesman:  As the article makes clear, Ms. Nobert specifically requested the agencies she had contacts with shall not be named and we will respect her wishes.

     Question:  Who is in charge of boring the water holes?

     Spokesman:  That is what I have to share with you and, if I have, more I will share with you. 

See above - and InnerCityPress.com

   

Amid #SocialUN, Ban Ki-moon Silent on #FreeZone9Bloggers, Panelists Answer FUNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30 -- When the UN held a “Social Media Summit” on January 30, it concluded with a panel about trends, from mobile to analytics to video and Facebook's acquisition of Snapchat. 

  But what about the UN defending or at least speaking up for freedom of expression on the Internet?

  Earlier on January 30, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban while in Ethiopia for the African Union summit had not raised the terrorism charges brought against the Zone 9 Bloggers.Video here.

   Dujarric said Ban has spoken elsewhere about freedom of expression in Africa, and that the (other) contents of his AU speech were interesting. 

   So Inner City Press went to the #SocialUN final panel and asked, does the UN do enough to speak up for freedom in social media? One of the panelists had just finished praising high tech in Qatar. What about arrests for insulting the leader? What about Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain?

  Panelist Hayes Brown of BuzzFeed, who advised and practices Be a Person on Twitter, including baking and (good) jokes, said it is hard for the UN, since it has member states that pay its bills. He said he agreed about bloggers in Ethiopia but wasn't sure what the UN could do, beyond speaking up.

  Well, as to the Zone 9 Bloggers, the UN has yet to speak up. That would be a start.

  Panelist Liz Borod Wight, who moderator Sree Sreenivasan marveled is paid to do Instagram for the BBC, cites those who tweeted #JeSuisCharlie and said those who have freedom of expression should use it.

  Panelist Adam Glenn from CUNY Journalism School said, hoping not to offend the hosts the UN, that the UN should ensure that all of its staff have training and can tweet.

  Inner City Press and FUNCA note, for example, that a UN staffer in South Sudan abruptly stopped tweeting after she tweeted this: "#breaking Lou Nuer youth are mobilising in big numbers leaving #Akobo town empty heading towards Dengjok #Southsudan."

   As Inner City Press reported at the time, after Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen raised this alarm, the tweet and her Twitter account profile both disappeared. So much for Rights Up Front.

  At the end of the panel a UN staffer took the floor to acknowledge that UN staff cannot tweet what they think. But can't Ban Ki-moon say what he thinks? Or doesn't he think it? We'll have more on this.

    

On Ebola, UN's Ban Ki-moon Praises Sierra Leone House to House Searches, Questions Demanded in Advance?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 19, more here -- On UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's belated Ebola trip through West Africa, on December 19 with Sierra Leone president Ernest Bai Koroma Ban "highlighted the importance of the Western-Area surge to achieving swift and positive progress on bringing the crisis to a close."

   This Western Area Surge involves house to house searches.

  Back on December 18, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: In Sierra Leone, President (Ernest Bai) Koroma announced that he is going to do house-to-house searches as an attempt to eradicate Ebola.  And I just wonder, some people say it raises… it's not voluntary; it's house-to-house searches.  Is this something that UNMEER or Dr. Nabarro or the Offices of the High Commission of Human Rights (OHCHR) has any view on?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I haven't seen the details of this report, but what I would say is:  I think any action taken to combat Ebola needs to be taken based on scientific fact. 

Inne City Press: I also wanted to ask an update.

Spokesman: You have to press the microphone.

Inner City Press: I did.  I think somebody turned it off.

Spokesman:  No one can control the mics from here.   That is a thought.  Maybe I should get a button from here.  [laughter]

Inner City Press:  You can [have] this question before I ask it.  Just joking.  I wanted to know on the question of the food service contractor, Supreme, and I asked you about it and you said: “This is a very good question, I'll look into it.”  And it's a week later.

Spokesman Dujarric:  I did.  I was asked to look and I did ask to look into it.  I have not seen an answer, but it remains a valid question and I will try to get you an answer.

  More than 24 hours later, nothing. But it's said Ban Ki-moon will take questions from the media on December 22. The question is, are the questions demanded and given in advance?

After an Ebola meeting of the UN Chief Executives Board in Washington, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the World Health Organization's Margaret Chan on November 21 took two questions from the media: both American, NPR and AP.

  Ban Ki-moon said that he has asked Tony Banbury of the UNMEER mission to open up in Mali, given the spread of ebola there. Previously Inner City Press asked the UN to confirm that its Mali Mission MINUSMA has canceled its contract with the Pasteur Institute in Bamako; the UN has yet to confirm it.

  Not mentioned by Ban is that his envoy to Mali Bert Koenders cut and ran, in the middle of the crises, to become Dutch foreign minister. So WHO is running the UN's show in Mali?

  As to WHO, last week it ham-handedly cc-ed BuzzFeed on its internal email stating that BuzzFeed reporter Jina Moore, "who on two occasions reported inaccurately," is banned. (Mashable has posted the chain of WHO e-mails, here.)

  Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing on November 14 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about WHO banning BuzzFeed. Video here and embedded below.

 Haq said he'd read the reports but wasn't sure if they are correct -- there doesn't seem to be any dispute of the authenticity of the WHO emails. Haq said to asked WHO - but it is a part of the UN system. Isn't there a system wide policy?

 Inner City Press asked again on November 21, just before Ban's and Chan's joint press availability. Ban's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric replied that much as he'd like to ban some media, they don't and he hopes his colleagues don't. Video here.

  During Ban's tenure at the head of the UN system, his Under Secretaries General have been allowed to pick and choose which media to respond to, to say on camera, "I don't respond to you," even to block -- or Ban -- a media's camera filming from the authorized UN General Assembly stakeout, Vine here.

  Things have reached this state in part because the old United Nations Correspondents Association, which one would expect to push back, has joined in the censorship trend. 

  For example, UNCA's then-president Giampaolo Pioli demanded that an article describing his financial relationship with Sri Lanka's ambassador be removed from the Internet or he would get the Press thrown out of the UN. 

  Lo and behold, an UNCA then-board member from Voice of America wrote a letter to the UN requesting just that; an Inner City Press FOIA request showed Voice of America said it had the support of the UN bureau chiefs of AFP and Reuters -- which has gotten Google to block -- or Ban -- from Search even its complaint to the UN, claiming it is private and subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This UN breeds censorship.

   Still, WHO's written explanation of a ban for "inaccurate reporting" in the middle of a health crisis is a new low. We and the new Free UN Coalition for Access will have more on this.  For now, consider the UN did nothing when the President of Sierra Leone jailed a journalist for his reporting on Ebola, as well as for daring to question President Ernest Bai Koroma's performance.

  The UN had a peacekeeping mission in the country, has a Country Team and now the UN Mission on Ebola Emergency Response, UNMEER. So at the UN's November 5 noon briefing Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: In Sierra Leone a journalist, David Tam-Baryoh, has been put in jail, maximum security prison, for his reporting on Ebola under a law that says that it is a crime to undermine Government efforts to fight the epidemic. He's also questioned the third term for the Presiden Koroma. So, I wanted to know what is the UN system, given its involvement through UNMEER and otherwise, what do they say about this case? Also, it seems does UNMEER have any human rights mandate or component to it? I thought all kind of UN entities had some overarching or inherent Rights Up Front…

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: There's a country office in all three countries. Human Rights Up Front does apply to all UN staff and missions. What is… I don't have the particulars of this case, but it is clear that journalists need to be allowed to do their work free of intimidation and fear.

Inner City Press: What about a law that says, obviously, it's important to fight Ebola, but should a journalist be, should a law exist in which you clearly could be arrested for…?

Spokesman: I think, clearly, the media has a very important role to play in fighting… in part of our response against Ebola, whether it's fighting stigmatization or other issues.

Those are generalities, but what is the UN doing? What does Ban Ki-moon's "Rights Up Front," born of his failure in Sri Lanka in 2009, really mean? Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access have been told that UN inquiries are being made. We'll have more on this.

   

On Ebola, ICP Asks Nabarro of UNfulfilled Pledges, He Points to Seven: Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Philippines, Sweden, and Switzerland

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- When UN Ebola envoy David Nabarro took questions from the media on Thursday, Inner City Press asked him about countries' pledges to combat Ebola which have not yet been paid out.

  Nabarro in response cited the Trust Fund website, and afterward confirmed to Inner City Press that this is the one that he meant.

  On it, there are seven countries listed as "pledged" but not yet "committed"-

Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Philippines, Sweden, & Switzerland.

  We'll have more on this. Inner City Press also asked Nabarro about crack-downs on the media. A case in Sierra Leone, for criticizing President Koroma, is the one Inner City Press asked about - but previously on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access it asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the World Health Organization "banning" or blacklisting BuzzFeed.

  Nabarro said that he is for transparency, but he's aware that there is frustration among authorities.  Isn't there always? 

Back on November 21 when Nabarro came out of the Security Council after briefing the Council's members, Inner City Press asked him about reports that all six people in Mali with Ebola had died of it, and what UNMEER and the peacekeeping missions MINUSMA will do.

  Nabarro said yes, all six confirmed cases have resulted in death. He said the missions will do contact tracing, prepare society and the health system and set up treatment centers. On reports that one of the UN peacekeepers exposed to Ebola traveled to Kidal in the North, where some areas are not accessible to aid workers, he did not comment.

  Recently UN humanitarian operations chief John Ging told Inner City Press there are areas in the north where aid workers have no access. Why would it be different with health workers?

  When the Security Council's session started up, Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop said that some had asked to participate by video but it was not possible for technical reasons. Later in the session, Ambassador Gary Quinlan called Mali's speaker the deputy foreign minister, then later the "charge d'affaires." It seems the deputy FM would have participated by video. MINUSMA couldn't set that up?

Earlier on November 21 after an Ebola meeting of the UN Chief Executives Board in Washington, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the World Health Organization's Margaret Chan took two questions from the media: both American, NPR and AP.

  Ban Ki-moon said that he has asked Tony Banbury of the UNMEER mission to open up in Mali, given the spread of ebola there. Previously Inner City Press asked the UN to confirm that its Mali Mission MINUSMA has canceled its contract with the Pasteur Institute in Bamako; the UN has yet to confirm it.

  Not mentioned by Ban is that his envoy to Mali Bert Koenders cut and ran, in the middle of the crises, to become Dutch foreign minister. So WHO is running the UN's show in Mali?

  As to WHO, last week it ham-handedly cc-ed BuzzFeed on its internal email stating that BuzzFeed reporter Jina Moore, "who on two occasions reported inaccurately," is banned. (Mashable has posted the chain of WHO e-mails, here.)

  Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing on November 14 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about WHO banning BuzzFeed. Video here and embedded below.

 Haq said he'd read the reports but wasn't sure if they are correct -- there doesn't seem to be any dispute of the authenticity of the WHO emails. Haq said to asked WHO - but it is a part of the UN system. Isn't there a system wide policy?

 Inner City Press asked again on November 21, just before Ban's and Chan's joint press availability. Ban's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric replied that much as he'd like to ban some media, they don't and he hopes his colleagues don't. Video here.

  During Ban's tenure at the head of the UN system, his Under Secretaries General have been allowed to pick and choose which media to respond to, to say on camera, "I don't respond to you," even to block -- or Ban -- a media's camera filming from the authorized UN General Assembly stakeout, Vine here.

  Things have reached this state in part because the old United Nations Correspondents Association, which one would expect to push back, has joined in the censorship trend. 

  For example, UNCA's then-president Giampaolo Pioli demanded that an article describing his financial relationship with Sri Lanka's ambassador be removed from the Internet or he would get the Press thrown out of the UN. 

  Lo and behold, an UNCA then-board member from Voice of America wrote a letter to the UN requesting just that; an Inner City Press FOIA request showed Voice of America said it had the support of the UN bureau chiefs of AFP and Reuters -- which has gotten Google to block -- or Ban -- from Search even its complaint to the UN, claiming it is private and subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This UN breeds censorship.

   Still, WHO's written explanation of a ban for "inaccurate reporting" in the middle of a health crisis is a new low. We and the new Free UN Coalition for Access will have more on this.  For now, consider the UN did nothing when the President of Sierra Leone jailed a journalist for his reporting on Ebola, as well as for daring to question President Ernest Bai Koroma's performance.

  The UN had a peacekeeping mission in the country, has a Country Team and now the UN Mission on Ebola Emergency Response, UNMEER. So at the UN's November 5 noon briefing Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: In Sierra Leone a journalist, David Tam-Baryoh, has been put in jail, maximum security prison, for his reporting on Ebola under a law that says that it is a crime to undermine Government efforts to fight the epidemic. He's also questioned the third term for the Presiden Koroma. So, I wanted to know what is the UN system, given its involvement through UNMEER and otherwise, what do they say about this case? Also, it seems does UNMEER have any human rights mandate or component to it? I thought all kind of UN entities had some overarching or inherent Rights Up Front…

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: There's a country office in all three countries. Human Rights Up Front does apply to all UN staff and missions. What is… I don't have the particulars of this case, but it is clear that journalists need to be allowed to do their work free of intimidation and fear.

Inner City Press: What about a law that says, obviously, it's important to fight Ebola, but should a journalist be, should a law exist in which you clearly could be arrested for…?

Spokesman: I think, clearly, the media has a very important role to play in fighting… in part of our response against Ebola, whether it's fighting stigmatization or other issues.

Those are generalities, but what is the UN doing? What does Ban Ki-moon's "Rights Up Front," born of his failure in Sri Lanka in 2009, really mean? Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access have been told that UN inquiries are being made. We'll have more on this.