At UN, Ban Takes 2 Pre-Selected Questions on Syria, Proud to Get US Letter, Signed by Susan Rice, Africa as Footnote

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 14 -- The UN has always been tightly scripted. But under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon it's hit a new level. 

  The day after the White House said it is now convinced Syria has used chemical weapons and would send a letter to Ban, the UN announced Ban would make a statement and take "one or two questions."

  The venue was changed so that it could be broadcast live. The players assembled; Ban's special rostrum was rolled out.

  After congratulating John Ashe of Antigua and Barbuda for his selection as the next President of the General Assembly --as noted by Inner City Press, Sri Lanka military figure Shavendra Silva also offered praise, in the new General Assembly from which the press and public are banned -- Ban predictably turned to Syria.

  Ban cited the 93,000 killed figure released yesterday by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, in a study the UN won't say -- and doesn't know -- who funded. That might have been one of the questions -- Inner City Press put it Thursday to the UN in Geneva and New York, without substantive answer. But no.

  Ban announced, proudly it seemed, that he just received a letter from the United States, but that it would be up to them to decide if it would be released.

(Outgoing US Ambassador Susan Rice was slated to do her own stakeout between 11 am and noon; when she did, she said it was she who signed the US letter.)

  Then Ban said he would take "two questions." Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky announced the identify of both questioners before either began. Video here from Minute 5:56.

  The first was Pamela Falk of CBS, as the 2013 president of the old UN Correspondents Association, a group which just agreed with Ban's Secretariat to ban media workspace that pre-dated Ban's tenure at the UN Security Council. Seemingly in exchange, the UN is now pressing for the removal of any sign of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, even on journalists' office doors.

  But the right question wasn't asked, leading to shouted questions after Ban as he walked away. Soon he will go to China. On the road again. Watch this site.

Footnote: Ban confined to a concluding footnote the killing of a UN peacekeeper in Kadulgi, Sudan; while sometimes an item is last to give it prominence, here no question on it was taken. That is the place of Africa in today's UN -- yesterday, the UN's DESA released a report projecting the Sierra Leone will still have the lowest life expectancy at birth in the year 2095. 

  DRC and Guinea Bissau, which also have UN missions, were similarly profiled. Diplomats from each expressed disgust to Inner City Press on Thursday night, one saying "they just want to raise money." And so it goes.

On Syria, OHCHR Didn't See Any Reason to Ask Who Paid for Study Ascribed To It & UN by Reuters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- So who paid for the Syria death toll study released by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on June 13?

  Both the authors of the report at the Human Rights Data Analysis Group and OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville have told Inner City Press that HRDAG worked "pro bono."

  HRDAG's Patrick Ball went further, telling Inner City Press, "We did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors."

  But who are the donors? There is an "anonymous US-based private foundation." Ball declined to disclose who it is, so Inner City Press asked Colville if the UN even knows. He replied:

"Donors have a right to remain anonymous if they want to. If we felt there was something going wrong with the way statistical analysis is being handled, we might ask questions on that -- but we don't any reason to."

  How could that be -- especially since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky at noon said that OHCHR reported there had been 93,000 deaths, how could OHCHR say it didn't see any reason to ask who paid for the study? There are other questions outstanding.

  For now, consider that the HRDAG report concludes that "the content of this analysis does not necessary reflect the opinion on OHCHR" -- but Reuters headline was "U.N. says 93,000 killed in Syrian conflict" and they called it a "UN report."

  That is -- a UN report that the UN , when asked, doesn't even know who paid for. Watch this site.

On Syria Death Toll Study OHCHR Explains Sole Source Selection of HRDAG: No Contract, Anonymous Funder UNknown?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- For the Syria death toll study released today, how did the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights select the San Francisco-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group, which receives its grants through a fiscal conduit, does not list a phone number on its website and is funded by an "anonymous US-based private foundation"?

  Inner City Press asked OHCHR, including in light of itsanswers in January about the first study by Benetech which listed the US National Endowment for Democracy among its funders. Quickly quickly, OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville has responded, comparing HRDAG to Benetech:

From: Rupert Colville [at] ohchr.org
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Hi, Press Q on HRDAG, how selected, etc,
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

They are now a separate non-profit organization, and they very kindly agreed to do it pro bono this time round. Why we chose them is very simple and very obvious: they are one of the leading groups of experts in a very small, highly specialized, field. Some of their key people have more than 20 years' experience in doing this type of analysis of casualties in conflicts, and other human rights related data. They are also well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. They have also done work for truth and reconciliation commissions, and international and domestic criminal tribunals, among others.

When it comes to Syria, they now have very specialized capabilities indeed, given the large amount of input from a Syrian language expert into the technical efforts and computer programming designed to ensure there is no double counting, mistaking of names etc.

So the criteria for choosing HRDAG were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working with HRDAG have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work. Re funding: we do not have concerns about the fact that HRDAG has other sources of funding -- as you must be aware by now, that is totally normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.

  But what about the anonymous US-based private foundation? And how does OHCHR memorialize any of this selection process if there is "no contract"? Is there at least a letter of some kind and can it be disclosed?

  Since without a contract or documented selection process etc the HRDAG report was put on the OHCHR's web site and is being described as a UN report, would you put up a study submitted by another (non-US-based) NGO? What would the process be? Does OHCHR know who the anonymous US-based donor paying for this work is? If so, will OHCHR disclose the identity? If not, why not? OHCHR has been asked. Watch this site.

Exclusive: For UN's Syria Death Toll Report, There "Was No Contract," Funding From Anonymous US-Based Donor

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- With media worldwide reporting that "the UN" today reported 93,000 killed in Syria, Inner City Press has inquired further into the authorship of the new report.

  Not only is it not a UN report -- the UN didn't even pay for it. 

  The California-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group tells Inner City Press there was no contract... we did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors."

  So HRDAG's donors paid for the report. But who are they? Inner City Press asked, and Patrick Ball of HRDAG, previously (January 2013) of Benetech, replied that "Regarding our anonymous donor: I cannot tell you who they are. I can tell you that they're US-based."

  Well that's re-assuring. An anonymous US-based donor paid for HRDAG's report on the Syria death toll, which the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released and many media called a "UN report."

From Patrick Ball's response:

From: Patrick Ball
Subject: your queries
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:41 AM

dear Matthew,

-- HRDAG was not paid for this report. There was no contract, no RFP. We did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors.

-- In terms of spinning off from Benetech, here are the announcements: https://hrdag.org/welcome/

http://benetech.blogspot.com/2013/02/benetechs-human-rights-spin-off.html

(I'm not sure why the date on Benetech's announcement is 15 Feb, I think we posted it on 18 Jan, but it might have been edited in Feb)

-- Regarding our anonymous donor: I cannot tell you who they are. I can tell you that they're US-based

If there was "no contract," can say a Russia-based or funded NGO hand in its report to Navi Pillay and get it released on the OHCHR's website? Who decided to do it this way? We have asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and will publishing their response upon receipt. 

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  Ball is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh. (The last of these was not listed on the January 2013 report; we have asked.)

Watch this site.

UN's New Syria Fatality Report Is By SF-Based HRDAG, Spun Out of Benetech, Still with Anonymous US-based Funder

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Amid the slaughter in Syria, how does the UN count the dead? 

  Today's announcement of at least 93,000 dead, ascribed tothe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva but compiled by an California-based outside contractor (re) named the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, is worth looking at in terms of authorship.

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  A Patrick Ball of Benetech told Inner City Press there had been a Request for Proposals: that is, competition. But soon it emerged that there was no RFP"as such." Two other organizations were approached, but OHCHR would not name them. A strange procurement, to say the least.

  Now, the day before the vote at the Human Rights Council on a Syria resolution sponsored by the US, UK, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey, OHCHR released a new report -- this time, not "formally" by Benetech.

  But even a cursory check based off the first page of the new report finds that the same Patrick Ball who replied to Inner City Press in January for Benetech is the executive director of the "new" contractor Human Rights Data Analysis Group or HRDAG. He is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh.

  At the bottom of the report is the new disclosure: "Formally, HRDAG is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Partners."

  It's a generic name, Community Partners -- but a quick visits finds it to be a sort of conduit which lends its non-profit status to start up. HRDAG is not so much a start up as a spin off -- it is being spun off from Benetech. 

  The report says "In February 2013, HRDAG became an independent organization." Is that because of the exposure of Benetech's funding by the US National Endowment for Democracy? But what has changed?

  HRDAG has as one of three advisers an official from Human Rights Watch. Under Funding it portrays Western government's funding to Benetech as a thing of the past. But even in its present re-incarnation, HRDAG lists as a funder an "anonymous U.S.-based private foundation."

   On Community Partners' board of directors are people from Ameriprise Financial, Mattel and NBC, among others. So did the renamed HRDAG, spun out of US-funded Benetech, get another essentially sole source contract? Why is the UN so sloppy? Why can it not issue its own reports, given its budget? Watch this site.