Somaliland Redux, of Airspace and Atrocities, As On Somalia Remittances, Will UN Press Barclays?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 18 -- Returning from three days in Somalia, UN humanitarian operations chief John Ging took correspondents' questions on February 18, nearly all of them about Al Shabaab. He replied that the UN must help Somalis to help themselves.

Inner City Press asked Ging about just that: what is the UN going to ensure that remittances from the Somali diaspora are not cut off, as Barclays tried to do last year until stopped by a court case?

Ging replied, "on remittances we are encouraging that all facilities needed" continue, "we don't have the authority or the capacity to decide on these issues [but] we are, on behalf of the Somali people, advocating and seeking to use our influence."

Here's an idea: Barclays has at least in the past trumpeted its respect for human rights with the UN, click here for one example. Is the UN using its (blue washing) influence there? This question goes beyond Ging's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. But coordinating would take it in.

Inner City Press also asked about the on-again, off-again dispute about the air space over Somaliland, in part triggered by the UN system awarding the air space to Mogadishu, which led to suspension of the UN Humanitarian Air Service flights.

Ging replied that on his "last trip there was an agreement brokered in Turkey that found a solution to allow a functioning of the airspace throughout Somalia... the coordinator himself took an UNHAS flight to Hargeisa."

After Ging's briefing had ended, Somaliland-based Free UN Coalition for Access member Mohamoud Ali Walaaleye, who has protested the arrest of journalists there, forwarded these questions:

What is UN's positions regarding the genocide that happened to Somaliland population during Siad Barre's regime, and as Somalia government acknowledged, does UN also do?

Would UN support initiative relative of Somaliland victims slaughtered Jezira beach at Moqadisho intended to uncover their remaining for resting their soil in Somaliland?

We'll have more on this.

Footnote: The first question to Ging was given to the United Nations Correspondents Association, the transcript of whose Q&A session with Ban Ki-moon last week has still not been released. UNCA's president used this perch to ask about a sanctions report not yet public, disputed by the government, on which we will have more. Reuters which bragged about that leaked report has used a bogus Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint to get a leak of its own anti Press complaint to the UN banned from Google's search. That's why it's the UN Censorship Alliance, and why FUNCA pushes forward.

   

On S. Sudan Vote & Ban's Panel, UN Dodges Questions of Payment, Diaspora Visits

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 26 -- With questions mounting about the registration process for the Southern Sudan secession referendum scheduled for January 9, the UN is withholding basic information about the Panel to which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “outsourced” key parts of the UN's role.

At media briefings by Ban's spokesperson, Inner City Press has asked about how the Panel is funded, which registration sites they have visited in the United States, Canada, Ethiopia and Kenya, and whether they are implicitly trying to blame the SPML for under-registration of Southern Sudanese in the Northern part of the country and/or in the eight “diapora” countries in which polling would be held.

UN acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq has declined to answer many of these questions, referring instead to a separate spokesperson's office set up for the panel. While Inner City Press has sent this “outsourced” office two recent rounds of questions, only one has been answered, and then only partially.

This seems to be a pattern at the UN -- to name a Panel and then refuse to answer questions about the subject matter outsourced to the Panel.

Left unanswered for example is when the registration site in four of the diaspora countries -- Australia, Egypt, Uganda and the United Kingdom -- will be visited and by whom, how much Panel chair Benjamin Mkapa has been paid and by whom, and what he meant when he blamed “some Southerners” for blocking registration in the North of Southern Sudanese.

Herebelow in order are Inner City Press' two rounds of question, both of which were copied to Ban Ki-moon's two top spokespeople without response, the UN Panel spokesman's partial response to the first round, and the second round un-responded to for more than 24 hours:

Hi. I would like responses on deadline to the following questions, as well as those I asked at the OSSG's noon briefings on November 22 and November 19:

How many people work for the Panel?

How much has thus far been paid to these people and to each of the three Panelists?

How much of this has come from the Basket Fund, and how much through UNMIS?

What is the status for each donor or pledger to the Basket Fund?

As asked November 19, has a vote by the Basket Fund group been taken regarding funding the Panel? If not, why not?

How much has been paid from the Basket Fund (or UNMIS) to IOM?

In which of the eight diaspora states have registration sites actually been visited?

Please provide updated registration figures or estimates for each diaspora country, as well as the number and location of registration (and polling) sites in each.

As asked November 22, on the statement “made from the Secretary-General’s Panel on the referendum. There seems to be a lot of controversy about the low numbers of Southern registrants in the North. Some people are putting the number as low as 9,000. So it seemed like, in your statement, you are saying some Southerners are encouraging other Southerners — I just want to understand, because the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] blames it all on Khartoum.”

When the Panel chair referred to “a campaign by some Southern leaders to encourage people not to register and vote outside Southern Sudan” was he referring to any SPLM role or not?

Separately, why is there no Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General briefing on November 26?

These were partially responded to by the Panel's spokesman:

Matthew, The Panel will have 38 staff when it reaches full deployment, which is expected by the end of this month. They are paid regular salaries just like any other UN staff members.

Any questions about the basket fund should be directed to UNDP.

Registration sites have been visited in Canada, Ethiopia, Kenya and the United States. Staff are about to visit sites in Australia, Egypt, Uganda and the United Kingdom as well.

IOM is conducting registration in the diaspora countries, so it will have the figures on the number of people registering and the number of sites. The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission will have the equivalent information for within Sudan.

The Panel chair was referring to Southern leaders and not to any specific SPLM role.

This response openly evaded the question for example of how much Benjamin Mkapa has been paid, as well as declining to answer questions about the Basket Fund to which the spokesman, and the Office of the Spokesman for Ban Ki-moon, has repeatedly made reference. And so these follow ups were submitted more than 24 hours ago to both UN offices:

Thanks but I again ask, with emphasis: How much has thus far been paid to each of the three Panelists? What you sent implies that they are “like any other UN staff members.” Are the three Panelists paid “When Actually Employed”? When have they so far been actually employed? How much have they been paid and by / through which mechanism: UNMIS or Basket Fund?

Please specify (with address) the registration sites the Panel has already visited in Canada, Ethiopia, Kenya and the United States, and will visit in Australia, Egypt, Uganda and the United Kingdom including date and who visit(ed).

And I am still asking for your (and OSSG/UNMIS) response or update on para 14 ofUnited Nations A/65/571 of 12 November 2010, Financing arrangements for the United Nations Mission in the Sudan for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions

“14. Concerning the requirements for the Secretary-General’s Panel, the Committee noted that, in paragraph 78 of his report to the Security Council on the Sudan (S/2010/528), the Secretary-General had indicated that it was expected that UNDP would contribute an amount of $0.9 million. Upon enquiry, the Committee was informed that the provision of those funds was uncertain, as the UNDP project documents for the referenda in the Sudan did not include the activities of the Panel and it would, therefore, require a decision by the basket fund steering committee. As such, no immediate disbursements could be made to facilitate the deployment of Panel support staff. The Committee was informed that should UNDP succeed in mobilizing resources for supporting the Panel, reimbursement to UNMIS would be made. The Advisory Committee is of the view that the Mission should continue to pursue this issue with UNDP and requests that further information on the status of the contribution be included in the context of the performance report.”

What is the status? What has UNMIS / DPKO / the Secretariat done? On deadline, thanks.

And after 24 hours and counting, no answer at all. Watch this site.

From the UN's November 22 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask about Sudan on the statement that you made from the Secretary-General’s Panel on the referendum. There seems to be a lot of controversy about the low numbers of Southern registrants in the North. Some people are putting the number as low as 9,000. So it seemed like, in your statement, you are saying some Southerners are encouraging other Southerners — I just want to understand, because the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] blames it all on Khartoum.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, that was just a summary of a press conference that President Mkapa held in Khartoum, and I’d just refer you to the transcript of that. We have that available in our office.

Inner City Press: And does the Secretary-General’s Panel have any role in overseeing these sites, these eight Diaspora voting sites in Africa, the United States, Australia? Are they going to visit any of those sites? And there is some controversy now about the IOM [International Organization for Migration] role in it. It’s not exactly clear to me who is funding the IOM for that work, but what is the Panel’s role on these other sites?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: No, you can check with the Panel itself about the sites. It’s looking at the whole referenda process, which includes sites for Southerners to vote in the North.

Inner City Press: But isn’t his Panel — I have had some problem in the past getting responses from the Panel, so I just wanted to know, it’s the Secretary-General, he set up the terms of reference, it’s his delegated Panel, right?

Somali Diaspora Questions UN's Moves, from Twin Cities to West Bank (of Missippissi)

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/minn1somalia061010.html

MINNEAPOLIS, June 10 -- People with no assurance of ever returning home follow politics more closely than those who've never left. Hassan, a Somali living in the Minneapolis neighborhood called the West Bank -- of the Mississippi River -- asked bitterly why the United Nations sent Ahmedou Ould Abdallah and now "the Tanzanian" Augustine Mahiga, as envoy to his homeland. "Who not a Somali?" Hassan asked Inner City Press on June 10. "Are we not good enough?"

Hassan works at Safari Express, an East African take out restaurant, in the Midtown Global Market in south Minneapolis. Over a plate of chicken suqqar, he recounted to Inner City Press how the civil war in his country makes it impossible to return. Some, he said, return only to fight, usually for Al Shaabab, "The Youth."

Outside in the Chicago and Lake neighborhood, women in veils walk in front of liquor stores and half abandoned buildings. The Ugbaad Cafe is closed and boarded up, across the street from one of Minneapolis' Peavy Parks. Two blocks further south, traversed on one of Minneapolis' bikes to rent and share, nurses are picketing Children's Hospital.

"Is that a rental bike?" a Somali calls out to Inner City Press. Yes it is. From 11th and Marquette out to 30th and Lake is less than 20 minutes. The same to the West Bank and Riverside.

It is June in Minneapolis and aging rock bands play for free. There is a statue for Mary Tyler Moore. Make it, Mary Tyler Moore in Mogadishu. "Don't go there," Hassan advises Inner City Press. "They kidnap you for money."

In fact, Inner City Press traveled with the UN Security Council and Ould Abdallah to Djibouti in 2008. Ministers of the Transitional Federal Government, some from Minnesota, stayed in the expensive Kempinsky Hotel and assigned themselves positions.

Now they control four square blocks in Mogadishu. The view of them from Riverside, from Minneapolis Somalis, is less than positive. "We need our country back," Hassan said over chicken. Then he smiled and went back behind the counter.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/minn1somalia061010.html

UN's Holmes Expected His Comments on Tamils Would Not Be Reported, Access Conditioned on Air-Brushed Coverage?

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/sri1holmes052309.html

UN PLANE / COPENHAGEN, May 24, modified May 26 at NGO request -- Nearing the end of UN Secretery General's Ban Ki-moon's 16 hour tour of Sri Lanka, during which twenty reporters were carted in two military helicopters from Colombo to UN-funded interment camps then over the shattered No Fire Zone, a question that arises is why does the UN take the Press with it?

While it should be so that the UN's work and world problems can be covered, some UN officials apparently feel its a quid pro quo for propaganda. Only what they say that casts them in a heroic light should be reported. If they do not like a story, they can shoot the messenger or try.

So it appears to some to be with John Holmes, the UN's erstwhile humanitarian coordinator. On the UN plane from Frankfurt to Sri Lanka, after Ban Ki-moon tpld the Press that Holmes and his Department of Political Affairs chief Lynn Pascoe would brief, clearly on the record, Holmes came back to chat with a photographer. Reporters gathered around and began some Q & A. At no point did Holmes say that it was off the record.

In fact, when Inner City Press asked him about UN envoy Vijay Nambiar's brother having written an op-ed praising Sri Lanka's assault on the Tamil north and the general who led it, Holmes said no comment. This strongly implies that answers that are given are on the record.

Holmes proceeded to make a series of statements that were telling and newsworthy. He expressed his view that Tamils in Sri Lanka long ago became disillusioned with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He said the LTTE or Tamil Tigers were "only supported by the diaspora," whose members barrage him with "a lot of email, I just delete them anyway."

Imagine for a moment a UN humanitarian coordinator saying, Rwanda's Tutsis besiege me with emails so I just delete them.

Imagine this said in front of at least a half dozen journalists. Several or all of them would report it. But Holmes appeared to count on the reporters on the trip to Sri Lanka all sharing his view, about what a burden it is to receive e-mails from members of a group that feels itself under fire.

Along with four other stories, none of which drew open complaint from any other UN official, Inner City Press ran a short piece about Holmes' comments, uploaded well past midnight from the UN-chosen hotel in Colombo. The comment above seemed newsworthy and reflective of an attitude wider-shared in the Secretariat. Holmes is thought to be among the more articulate officials of this UN, often saying things that others in the Ban administration cannot or will not.

Inner City Press chose to leave unreported Holmes' comments about Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Ambassador to the UN, and other comments about the Tamil diaspora. (Click here for Inner City Press' coverage of Holmes first 2009 visit to Sri Lanka)

The next morning in the hotel lobby, another reporter told Inner City Press that Holmes was angry that what he had said had been published, and was expressing this anger to all and sundry, including other journalists whom he correctly thought would do his bidding. While Holmes never said "on background" -- a term of art in journalist and at the UN which Holmes has used in the past -- Inner City Press nevertheless immediately that morning modified the story, excising the part about Holmes deleting Tamils' emails and other things he said. Click here the modified story; the original was replaced on InnerCityPress.com on Saturday before the UN trip to north Sri Lanka.

Hours later, after a Ban Ki-moon speech in an open air World Food Program warehouse in the Manik Farm interment camp for Tamils which the UN funds, Inner City Press approached Holmes with at least some contrition to tell him that the story had been changed. "I won't talk to you anymore," Holmes said preemtively.

"But you never said 'on background'" --

"It wasn't even on background," Holmes said. "It was a casual conversation. It is not serious, it is not professional." Then Holmes walked away, to be flown over the blasted "No Fire" zone where he had already said that no people remained.

Not only was Holmes speaking to the Press on the UN plane just after Ban said Pascoe and Holmes would brief on the record in his stead, Holmes also was or should have been on notice of the Press' understanding when, for example, Inner City Press asked for comment on a UNHCR staff member still jailed by the Sri Lankan government for his mother have rented a room to an alleged LTTE member. (Click here for the story, which Inner City Press told Holmes had been uploaded from the Frankfurt airport while waiting for the UN plane. A UNHCR official approached Inner City Press in Colombo with an answer, but following Holmes, who knows for now if it is on the record.)

Holmes said he hadn't previously heard of the the humanitarian UN system staffer's case -- typical -- but that "if the facts are as you say." Such legalistic constructions, and Holmes' "no comment" to the question about Satish Nambiar, implied that what Holmes said was on the record.

In any event, different understandings of whether a comment is on the record or not are common, particularly at the UN, where almost always a perfunctory apology resolves the matter, and nearly invariably a modification of the underlying articles does. Why is Holmes or this Tamil topic, or Holmes and this Tamil topic, so different?

Inner City Press came to Sri Lanka to cover the recent slew of deaths and the inhuman UN-funded interment camps, not Holmes. In fact, it was advertised as a trip by Ban Ki-moon, with no mention of Holmes. One can cover humanitarian issues without any discretionary access to the emergency relief coordinator.

In public record press conferences, Inner City Press has in the past asked Holmes about such issues as OCHA losing $10 million to Myanmar's Than Shwe regime (and Zimbabwe) due to currency exchange manipulations and OCHA not advocating, at least publicly, for UN system humanitarian staff detained and arrested by the Sri Lankan government. Perhaps Holmes' advocacy on these issues was... off the record. Watch this site.

Footnote: the symbiosis between media and UN was shown again during the flight from Colombo. At first it was said that Ban would brief the gaggle of reporters during the refueling stop in Bahrain. Holmes came half way back and stood in the aisle. On the record? Off the record?

To ensure that Holmes' sensitivities wouldn't leave other reporters with fewer quotes, which is the coin of this realm, Inner City Press stayed in the back of the plane, awaiting Ban's appearance to ask about the status of the doctors who in the conflict zone had offered treatment and casualty numbers and are now detained, which Holmes said -- on the record? -- would be raised.

But Team Ban, apparently, went another way, summoning a few reporters for one on one interviews for their local markets. Such access can better be linked to positive coverage, they seem to feel.

For Holmes, most symbiotic is the British media, one outlet of which was heard musing earlier this month, Holmes says he'd like to come on at 1:15, but do we have any questions for him? Holmes is known to be closely following the British Parliament scandals.

While some in humanitarian circles say that ever since when at the UK government's nomination Holmes entered the UN's Ban administration he really wanted the Department of Political Affairs job, that might explain not only his comments assessing Tamil support for the LTTE in a way a humanitarian coordinator shouldn't but also his sensitivity to actual reporting of what he said without having uttered the required "off the record" or "background." Or, they wonder, does Holmes still have his eye on a future in the UK?

While he is at the UN, at least in the top humanitarian post, he shouldn't tell different stories to NGOs and the press, or if he does, he shouldn't be surprised it gets reported. The focus here is, after all, the protection of civilians, not politics.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri1holmes052309.html