UNITED NATIONS, November 23 -- As the Iran P5+1 talks continue on the eve of the current deadline, who is bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."
While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.
On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for having championed a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.
At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.
Back on October 27 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.
On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.
But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.
Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran. Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights.
Footnote: on October 27, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 4 -- When Australian Ambassador Gary Quinlan got the UN Security Council program of work agreed to for his month as Council president on November 4, an item was added to that afternoon's schedule at this request: Burkina Faso.
Inner City Press, staking-out the Council meeting, heard that Burkina Faso and the ouster of Blaise Compaore would be addressed that afternoon, and reported it - but not who had requested it. Since France has “held the pen” on its other former colonies from Mali to Central African Republic, some assumed they'd made the request. But, in perhaps a good sign, it was Australia.
After the day's UN noon briefing, Quinlan and at least three members of his team came to brief the press. Quinlan gave a more detailed than usual opening statement, far from uninteresting, and then the questions -- and to some, the problems -- began.
The first question was set aside for the old UN Correspondents Association, a former Reuters reporter who asked about “The Ukraine.” Next came France 24, then Agence France Presse and a US state media.
At that point Inner City Press, on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, noted that the correspondent for Al Mayadeen, with a different perspective, stood up and walked out. Was it a message?
Seems so: the next was Associated Press and then Newsweek / Israel Radio, with questions about the Golan Heights and North Korea. Inner City Press, called on next, thanked Quinlan for FUNCA and asked that he hold Q&A stakeouts after each closed consultation. (He said, to his credit, that's the plan.)
Inner City Press asked the legal basis for airstrikes on Syria and if international law wouldn't be better served by seeking Security Council approval. Quinlan said no member of the Council has brought it up, and that his own country is acting in Iraq under a request from that country's government, and is sending a couple hundred trainers.
Quinlan has scheduled a briefing and, he hopes, adoption of a “technical” resolution on sanctions for November 25. Inner City Press asked him about the “regime change” letter by Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group expert Dinesh Mahtani, which it exclusively published and which led to Mahtani's resignation. Mahtani's letter, here, referred twice to Australia.
Quinlan said the training and qualification of experts will be discussed and addressed, and that impartiality “must be a given.” We'll have more on this.
The briefing continued with Voice of America - a second US state media, both under the US Broadcasting Board of Governors; perhaps for that reason after the former ReutersUN reporter was called on, the current stood in the back with a member of the Australian mission delegation.
Then, described as the last question, came Al Jazeera, saying it “heard” that Burkina Faso would be addressed in the Council and asking when). The briefing was set to end -- when there was a (polite) rebellion.
A reporter from Armenian media said she had her hand raised the whole time, and asked about Ukraine. Quinlan to his credit decided to stay and answer. Here's hoping its a harbinger of the coming Security Council month, at least in terms of accessibility to the media. Watch this site.
Reuters reminded silent on this development, clearly relevant to the sanctions story and report, even as it was discussed on camera by the UN spokesman and UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant.
While trumpeting its (compensated) “exclusive” publication of leaked documents, Reuters has petitioned Google to block from its Search an anti-Press complaint it filed with the UN, calling it a personal communication and even copyrighted, under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Its filing, under oath, to Google is here. Both forms of censorship are opposed, at the UN, by the new Free UN Coalition for Access.
The attempt to get leaked documents blocked from Google's Search as "copyrighted" is a strange logic for a company that itself publishes unauthorized leaks. But who ever said Reuters is consistent?
Join Sir Harold Evans, Reuters Editor-at-Large, to hear a firsthand report from the front-lines of the Ebola crisis, and its impact on Africa and across the globe.
Speakers:
Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a member of President Obama’s Cabinet
Vandi Chidi Minah, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations.
Sheri Fink, M.D., Ph.D. Author of “Five Days at Memorial”
Siddhartha Mukherjee, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine, Columbia University
Sharon Begley, Senior Health & Science Correspondent, Reuters
MODERATOR Sir Harold Evans, Reuters Editor-at-Large, author of “The American Century”
Reuters does Ebola - and then sells it? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, October 29 -- Even with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the Horn of Africa, on October 27 his spokesman Stephane Dujarric had no comment on the Somali President versus prime minister spat when Inner City Press asked, video here.
Now on October 29 Ban has said, flanked by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, that "Somalia needs continuity and stability at this critical time.”
Take that, Prime Minister Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed. As Haitians found when Ban refused to even receive legal papers much less appear in court on the claims his UN brought cholera to the island, Ban is more focused on power than on the law. And Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is, for now, the man in Mogadishu.
Also in the Horn in Eritrea, there is intrigue. On October 7 Inner City Press exclusively reported that a member of the UN's Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group Dinesh Mahtani used UN SEMG time and letterhead for unrelated advocacy regarding Eritrea. Mahtani's letter wasexclusively put online here by Inner City Press.
The silence by Reuters, for which Mahtani used to work, and Agence France Presse continues even as the two UN Security Council Permanent Representatives, one on-camera, have spoken about Mahtani, and UN spokesman Dujarric has done so twice, both times on-camera. We'll have more on this.
On October 15, the Somalia and Eritrea sanctions committee chairman Ambassador Oh Joon of South Korea, when Inner City Press asked of Mahtani, said no, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”
Now on October 24, after the UN Security Council extended the mandate of the SEMG with two abstentions, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about Mahtani, and the level of proof at this point of Eritrean support to Al Shabaab. Video here.
Lyall Grant said that Mahtani was disciplined and resigned, that he "exceeded his authority in issuing that particularly letter." But as set forth below, major Western wire services in reporting on the SEMG have yet to mention the "regime change" letter.
Lyall Grant said this time there is "much less evidence" of Eritrean support for Al Shabaab, but that Eritrea should allow the SEMG to visit Asmara. Again, how is this different from "guilty until proven innocent"? The UK Mission transcribed the Q&A on this:
Inner City Press: I wanted to about the Eritrea Sanctions and also about the Monitoring Group. On the sanctions, is there from your point of view evidence of Eritrea still supporting Al Shabaab because what they seem to say is if there is no evidence, why should they let them in? It’s kind of like guilty until proven innocent. And the other thing I wanted to ask you about was the Monitoring Group. There was a letter that emerged from one of the experts Dinesh Mahtani in which he basically sort of tried to pick a new leader for the country. He basically said he’d be a good leader for the country. He’s now resigned and I wonder what are the implications of that given that he worked on the report. What have you learned in terms of training for experts in the future. Is there any follow-up I guess on this resignation from what some people call a regime-change letter?
Ambasssador Lyall Grant: I don’t have any comment to make on this particular expert. As you say he has been disciplined by the UN system and he’s resigned his position. He clearly exceeded his authority in issuing that particular letter.
On the wider point, there has been very clear evidence in successive Monitoring Group reports on support for Al Shabaab from Eritrea. In the latest report there is much less evidence and that is encouraging but because the Monitoring Group has not been allowed to visit Asmara, they have said very clearly that they have not been able to investigate various strands of evidence that comes their way. So if Eritrea is no longer supporting Al Shabaab then why do they not allow the Monitoring Group to visit and talk to whoever they want to talk to and then no doubt the Monitoring Group will report that there is no further evidence of Eritrea supporting Al Shabaab. In that case, the United Kingdom would be one of the first countries to suggest that sanctions be lifted. So I think the solution to this problem lies in the hands of the government of Eritrea.
Since October 8 not only Reuters but also Agence France Presse have retyped copies of the SEMG report given to them -- with no mention of the SEMG scandal and resignation acknowledged right in the UN Press Briefing Room on October 8.
Isn't this like "reporting" on a panel of judges' ruling without mentioning that one of the judges just resigned after being confronted with a letter he wrote about the subject matter of the case?
On October 15, when the UN Security Council met behind closed doors about SEMG and the report, the bylined scribe of Reuters Mahtani-less story about the report stood briefly in front of the Council, then left.
After an hour and a half when the meeting ended, Inner City Press asked the sanctions committee chairman Oh Joon if Mahtani and his resignation has been raised in the meeting. No, Oh Joon replied, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”
But some question what the chairman of the SEMG knew, and how the involvement of the now-resigned Mahtani in the report under review impacted it. We’ll have more on this.
On October 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Mahtani's letter and if it was appropriate behavior for a sanctions monitor. No, Dujarric said, adding that the letter was “shown” to Dinesh Mahtani, who has resigned. Video here.
On October 10, Reuters two UN correspondents dutifully regurgitatedthe SEMG's most recent report, even called it "exclusive" -- a basis on which Reuters pays -- with no mention that one of the SEMG's members had resigned after being exposed for pushing regime change.
Sources had told Inner City Press that Mahtani, the finance expert on SEMG and previously on the DR Congo Sanctions group, was found requesting favors from a member state, to which the SEMG reports.Here is a document:
a letter from Dinesh Mahtani, ostensibly in his SEMG role, saying that former Eritrean official Ali Abdu "has great potential to play a stabilizing role in Eritrea with the country possibly headed to an uncertain period in its history."
This is hardly the first controversy in the SEMG -- but usually the members wait until they are off or on their way off the Monitor Group to “let it all hang out,” as one source put it of previous SEMG chair Matt Bryden.
The current chair, Jarat Chopra, has faced complaints from Somalia, also exclusively reported by Inner City Press.
Bryden's departure was telegraphed in remarks to, and a report by, Inner City Press on July 24, 2012 when Security Council members from three countries gave Inner City Press exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance.
"He's leaving," one of them said dismissively and definitely of Bryden. There was snarky speculation Bryden may have been angling for a book deal, or a post with a group like HRW.
With Bryden the questions were largely of leaking, and for example of micro-managing the Eritrean air force. Apparently that's disputed: but consider Paragraphs 60 to 75 of the 2012 report S/2012/545, down to the "flow of spare parts and lubricants." Those about Mahtani, the sources tell Inner City Press, are "bigger... regime change on UN letterhead." Now Mahtani has resigned. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, October 27 -- On October 7 Inner City Press exclusively reported that a member of the UN's Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group Dinesh Mahtani used UN SEMG time and letterhead for unrelated advocacy regarding Eritrea. Mahtani's letter wasexclusively put online here by Inner City Press.
The silence by Reuters, for which Mahtani used to work, and Agence France Presse continues even as the two UN Security Council Permanent Representatives, one on-camera, have spoken about Mahtani, and UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric has done so twice, both times on-camera.
Some social media users from the Horn of Africa citing Mahtani's friends in New York and Nairobi and correcting themselves that Mahtani quit but was not fired are focused on how the letter emerged, projecting their own fixations on Inner City Press (which beyond the Horn reports on Argentina debt, Sri Lankan war crimes, Ebola in West Africa) rather than whether the letter was appropriate.
(The UN Secretariat, even with Ban Ki-moon in the Horn of Africa, is apparently just as distracted: spokesman Dujarric had no comment on the Somali President versus prime minister spat when Inner City Press asked, video here.)
Former SEMG-er Matt Bryden, asked to comment on Mahtani's letter, has instead continued to ask for explanation of the view that by reporting on the flow of lubricants to Eritrea's air force he was micro-managing, or making a telling showing of this UN sanctions apparatus.
The UN seems to hire Western-aligned advocates and then given them no training or guidance. Then when they err, at least in this case, they are disciplined and resign. But what is learned? What is changed? We'll have more on this.
On October 15, the Somalia and Eritrea sanctions committee chairman Ambassador Oh Joon of South Korea, when Inner City Press asked of Mahtani, said no, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”
Now on October 24, after the UN Security Council extended the mandate of the SEMG with two abstentions, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about Mahtani, and the level of proof at this point of Eritrean support to Al Shabaab. Video here.
Lyall Grant said that Mahtani was disciplined and resigned, that he "exceeded his authority in issuing that particularly letter." But as set forth below, major Western wire services in reporting on the SEMG have yet to mention the "regime change" letter.
Lyall Grant said this time there is "much less evidence" of Eritrean support for Al Shabaab, but that Eritrea should allow the SEMG to visit Asmara. Again, how is this different from "guilty until proven innocent"? The UK Mission transcribed the Q&A on this:
Inner City Press: I wanted to about the Eritrea Sanctions and also about the Monitoring Group. On the sanctions, is there from your point of view evidence of Eritrea still supporting Al Shabaab because what they seem to say is if there is no evidence, why should they let them in? It’s kind of like guilty until proven innocent. And the other thing I wanted to ask you about was the Monitoring Group. There was a letter that emerged from one of the experts Dinesh Mahtani in which he basically sort of tried to pick a new leader for the country. He basically said he’d be a good leader for the country. He’s now resigned and I wonder what are the implications of that given that he worked on the report. What have you learned in terms of training for experts in the future. Is there any follow-up I guess on this resignation from what some people call a regime-change letter?
Ambasssador Lyall Grant: I don’t have any comment to make on this particular expert. As you say he has been disciplined by the UN system and he’s resigned his position. He clearly exceeded his authority in issuing that particular letter.
On the wider point, there has been very clear evidence in successive Monitoring Group reports on support for Al Shabaab from Eritrea. In the latest report there is much less evidence and that is encouraging but because the Monitoring Group has not been allowed to visit Asmara, they have said very clearly that they have not been able to investigate various strands of evidence that comes their way. So if Eritrea is no longer supporting Al Shabaab then why do they not allow the Monitoring Group to visit and talk to whoever they want to talk to and then no doubt the Monitoring Group will report that there is no further evidence of Eritrea supporting Al Shabaab. In that case, the United Kingdom would be one of the first countries to suggest that sanctions be lifted. So I think the solution to this problem lies in the hands of the government of Eritrea.
Since October 8 not only Reuters but also Agence France Presse have retyped copies of the SEMG report given to them -- with no mention of the SEMG scandal and resignation acknowledged right in the UN Press Briefing Room on October 8.
Isn't this like "reporting" on a panel of judges' ruling without mentioning that one of the judges just resigned after being confronted with a letter he wrote about the subject matter of the case?
On October 15, when the UN Security Council met behind closed doors about SEMG and the report, the bylined scribe of Reuters Mahtani-less story about the report stood briefly in front of the Council, then left.
After an hour and a half when the meeting ended, Inner City Press asked the sanctions committee chairman Oh Joon if Mahtani and his resignation has been raised in the meeting. No, Oh Joon replied, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”
But some question what the chairman of the SEMG knew, and how the involvement of the now-resigned Mahtani in the report under review impacted it. We’ll have more on this.
On October 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Mahtani's letter and if it was appropriate behavior for a sanctions monitor. No, Dujarric said, adding that the letter was “shown” to Dinesh Mahtani, who has resigned. Video here.
On October 10, Reuters two UN correspondents dutifully regurgitatedthe SEMG's most recent report, even called it "exclusive" -- a basis on which Reuters pays -- with no mention that one of the SEMG's members had resigned after being exposed for pushing regime change.
Sources had told Inner City Press that Mahtani, the finance expert on SEMG and previously on the DR Congo Sanctions group, was found requesting favors from a member state, to which the SEMG reports.Here is a document:
a letter from Dinesh Mahtani, ostensibly in his SEMG role, saying that former Eritrean official Ali Abdu "has great potential to play a stabilizing role in Eritrea with the country possibly headed to an uncertain period in its history."
This is hardly the first controversy in the SEMG -- but usually the members wait until they are off or on their way off the Monitor Group to “let it all hang out,” as one source put it of previous SEMG chair Matt Bryden.
The current chair, Jarat Chopra, has faced complaints from Somalia, also exclusively reported by Inner City Press.
Bryden's departure was telegraphed in remarks to, and a report by, Inner City Press on July 24, 2012 when Security Council members from three countries gave Inner City Press exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance.
"He's leaving," one of them said dismissively and definitely of Bryden. There was snarky speculation Bryden may have been angling for a book deal, or a post with a group like HRW.
With Bryden the questions were largely of leaking, and for example of micro-managing the Eritrean air force. Apparently that's disputed: but consider Paragraphs 60 to 75 of the 2012 report S/2012/545, down to the "flow of spare parts and lubricants." Those about Mahtani, the sources tell Inner City Press, are "bigger... regime change on UN letterhead." Now Mahtani has resigned. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, October 24 -- On October 7 Inner City Press exclusively reported that a member of the UN's Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group Dinesh Mahtani used UN SEMG time and letterhead for unrelated advocacy regarding Eritrea. Mahtani's letter wasexclusively put online here by Inner City Press.
On October 15, the Somalia and Eritrea sanctions committee chairman Ambassador Oh Joon of South Korea, when Inner City Press asked of Mahtani, said no, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”
Now on October 24, after the UN Security Council extended the mandate of the SEMG with two abstentions, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about Mahtani, and the level of proof at this point of Eritrean support to Al Shabaab. Video here.
Lyall Grant said that Mahtani was disciplined and resigned, that he "exceeded his authority in issuing that particularly letter." But as set forth below, major Western wire services in reporting on the SEMG have yet to mention the "regime change" letter.
Lyall Grant said this time there is "much less evidence" of Eritrean support for Al Shabaab, but that Eritrea should allow the SEMG to visit Asmara. Again, how is this different from "guilty until proven innocent"?
The
UK Mission
transcribed the Q&A on this:
Inner
City Press: I wanted to about the Eritrea Sanctions and also about the
Monitoring Group. On the sanctions, is there from your point of view
evidence of Eritrea still supporting Al Shabaab because what they seem
to say is if there is no evidence, why should they let them in? It’s
kind of like guilty until proven innocent. And the other thing I wanted
to ask you about was the Monitoring Group. There was a letter that
emerged from one of the experts Dinesh Mahtani in which he basically
sort of tried to pick a new leader for the country. He basically said
he’d be a good leader for the country. He’s now resigned and I wonder
what are the implications of that given that he worked on the report.
What have you learned in terms of training for experts in the future.
Is there any follow-up I guess on this resignation from what some people
call a regime-change letter?
Ambasssador Lyall Grant: I don’t have any comment to make on this
particular expert. As you say he has been disciplined by the UN system
and he’s resigned his position. He clearly exceeded his authority in
issuing that particular letter.
On the wider point, there has been very clear evidence in successive
Monitoring Group reports on support for Al Shabaab from Eritrea. In the
latest report there is much less evidence and that is encouraging but
because the Monitoring Group has not been allowed to visit Asmara, they
have said very clearly that they have not been able to investigate
various strands of evidence that comes their way. So if Eritrea is no
longer supporting Al Shabaab then why do they not allow the Monitoring
Group to visit and talk to whoever they want to talk to and then no
doubt the Monitoring Group will report that there is no further evidence
of Eritrea supporting Al Shabaab. In that case, the United Kingdom
would be one of the first countries to suggest that sanctions be
lifted. So I think the solution to this problem lies in the hands of
the government of Eritrea.
Since October 8 not only Reuters but also Agence France Presse have retyped copies of the SEMG report given to them -- with no mention of the SEMG scandal and resignation acknowledged right in the UN Press Briefing Room on October 8.
Isn't this like "reporting" on a panel of judges' ruling without mentioning that one of the judges just resigned after being confronted with a letter he wrote about the subject matter of the case?
On October 15, when the UN Security Council met behind closed doors about SEMG and the report, the bylined scribe of Reuters Mahtani-less story about the report stood briefly in front of the Council, then left.
After an hour and a half when the meeting ended, Inner City Press asked the sanctions committee chairman Oh Joon if Mahtani and his resignation has been raised in the meeting. No, Oh Joon replied, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”
But some question what the chairman of the SEMG knew, and how the involvement of the now-resigned Mahtani in the report under review impacted it. We’ll have more on this.
On October 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Mahtani's letter and if it was appropriate behavior for a sanctions monitor. No, Dujarric said, adding that the letter was “shown” to Dinesh Mahtani, who has resigned. Video here.
On October 10, Reuters two UN correspondents dutifully regurgitatedthe SEMG's most recent report, even called it "exclusive" -- a basis on which Reuters pays -- with no mention that one of the SEMG's members had resigned after being exposed for pushing regime change.
Sources had told Inner City Press that Mahtani, the finance expert on SEMG and previously on the DR Congo Sanctions group, was found requesting favors from a member state, to which the SEMG reports.Here is a document:
a letter from Dinesh Mahtani, ostensibly in his SEMG role, saying that former Eritrean official Ali Abdu "has great potential to play a stabilizing role in Eritrea with the country possibly headed to an uncertain period in its history."
This is hardly the first controversy in the SEMG -- but usually the members wait until they are off or on their way off the Monitor Group to “let it all hang out,” as one source put it of previous SEMG chair Matt Bryden.
The current chair, Jarat Chopra, has faced complaints from Somalia, also exclusively reported by Inner City Press.
Bryden's departure was telegraphed in remarks to, and a report by, Inner City Press on July 24, 2012 when Security Council members from three countries gave Inner City Press exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance.
"He's leaving," one of them said dismissively and definitely of Bryden. There was snarky speculation Bryden may have been angling for a book deal, or a post with a group like HRW.
With
Bryden the
questions were
largely of
leaking, and for example of
micro-managing
the Eritrean
air force. Apparently that's disputed: but consider Paragraphs 60 to 75 of the 2012 report S/2012/545, down to the "flow of spare parts and lubricants." Those about Mahtani, the sources tell Inner City Press, are "bigger... regime change on UN letterhead." Now Mahtani has resigned. We'll have more on this.
