Showing posts with label jordan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jordan. Show all posts

Friday, August 4, 2017

UN Mulls Tells Israel & Jordan of "Possible Misconduct" of UN Staff in Jerusalem, Leak Shows


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, August 4 – A UN document leaked to Inner City Press, addressed to the UN's Legal Counsel, seeks guidance on whether to tell Israel and Jordan about "possible misconduct implicating United Nations personnel assigned at the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO) mission in Jerusalem, Israel." 

The request, addressed to UN Legal Counsel Miguel de Serpa Soares from Felista Ondari, UNSCO Chief Mission Support, says "on behalf of the UNSCO Head of Mission Mr.  Nickolay Mladenov, I am hereby seeking the good services of your office to provide the HoM with advise as to whether the findings of the investigation should be referred to the national authorities of Israel and Jordan for consideration and action." What has Soares of UN Headquarters advised? The first document is here. Inner City Press exclusively published this and asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN has told Israel and Jordan and if not, why not. We'll have more on this. After the UN bribery verdict of six guilty counts against Ng Lap Seng was delivered by the jury late on July 27, UN Spokesman Farhan Haq who has repeatedly dodged questions about the case from Inner City Press wasquoted by Reuters that the UN was "a victim of these crimes" and later that "We are exploring the possibility of requesting restitution as a victim to these crimes, including recovering expenses incurred to provide the requested cooperation." Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Haq on July 28 to explain how the UN is the victim, and how it dares say it should be get for corruption. Video 8 from Minute 8:40. Haq said, This is the position of our Legal Council. Now Inner City Press has asked above. Watch this site. 
  The UN even refused to tell the prosecution whom it spoke to for its Task Force Report, which said it has no ethical standards. The UN will ask for money, while paying nothing to the 10,000 people it killed in Haiti? Reuters doesn't even raise that - it has a conflict of interest.  UN official Ion Butnaru put the name of Ng's company Sun Kian Ip Group into a General Assembly resolution long after it was voted on, took a free trip to Macau and an iPad there. Victim? Ng's company South South News bought full page ads in the ball program of the UN Correspondents Association, then went to their ball at Cipriani and got photos with then Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. (Reuters then as now had a seat on UNCA's board, something not disclosed in its coverage of Ng and the UN). A current UN official Meena Sur was shown in the trial to have held on Ng's brochure for his planned Macau conference Center. The UN remains UNreformed. Inner City Press, which has covered the scandal from the beginning and remains restricted by the UN for its coverage, rushed down to the courthouse and asked Ng Lap Seng, as he left by the side door to Worth Street, what he thinks of the UN and those there who took his money and favors, a list well beyond John Ashe and Francis Lorenzo. Periscope video here. He did not answer, understandable. He will be back in court on August 7 for arguments on if his house arrest can continue. Before Ng left, Inner City Press witnessed his lawyers leaving. They told the judge they will appeal. But now that Ng is guilty, will the UN act on those exposed as corrupt, and reverse its censorship?
 Ng Lap Seng's $3 billion UN convention center plan had been assisted by Meena Sur, still working for the UN Department of General Assembly and Conference Management. Inner City Press asked the UN spokesman Farhan Haq, who dodged by saying the UN was waiting for the verdict. But the UN is not on trial, because it has and cited immunity. 
Likewise, high UN official Navid Hanif attended Ng Lap Seng's murky event in Macau in August 2015, and remains at at the UN. Spokesman Haq refused to answer about him, while telling Inner City Press that lower UN staff member Frances Fuller “separated from service” in September 2016, just after Inner City Press asked about her. 
Francis Lorenzo, who took more money from Ng than the now deceased John Ashe, was given a UN.org email address by DGACM despite never being pictured among Ashe's Special Advisers, and never giving up his day job as the Dominican Republic's Deputy Permanent Representative. 
Even on July 26, DGACM's Executive Officer told Inner City Press that the UN still hands such UN credential to anyone whom a President of the General Assembly tells them too. So nothing has been reformed. 
The Department of Public Information under Cristina Gallach took Ng Lap Seng's money for its slavery memorial, and allowed fraudulentevents in the UN lobby. But UN lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who allowed the content of Ng's South South News to be included in UNTV archives under his watch, said this was just an issue of “judgment,” not malfeasance. 
The UN Correspondents Association, to whom Dujarric “lent” the UN Press Briefing Room then evicted and still restricts Inner City Press for seeking to cover the event to see if they discussed taking South South News' money and providing a venue for Ng's photo op with Ban Ki-moon, did not have a single member correspondent covering the month-long UN bribery case. Other dubious events were being hosted. 

And so, while awaiting the jury's verdict on Ng Lap Seng - which may be not guilty given how corrupt the UN and the star witness against him Francis Lorenzo have been shown to be - it is clear that the UN has not reformed and remains corruption and a censor, seven months into the reign of “new” Secretary General Antonio Guterres. It is the UN that should be prosecuted, or invited to leave. Watch this site. 

Saturday, January 16, 2016

For Next UN Secretary General, Montenegro Nominates Igor Luksic, UAE Funds PGA Lykketoft's Trip to Abu Dhabi, OPGA Tells Inner City Press


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, January 16 -- How should the next UN Secretary General be selected, to improve the Organization? 
On December 15, after President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft as well as US Ambassador Samantha Power co-signed a letter to all states and Observer States to put forward candidates, Lykketoft took questions. 
 On January 15, Lykketoft's office put online a third nomination letter, that of Montenegro for Igor Luksic, joining FYROM's Srgjan Kerim and Croatia's Pusic. 
And when, we ask, might Slovakia put in a nomination for Jan Kubis? And would Czech Republic make a nomination, while its Deputy Prime Minister says "no more refugees"? 
 Earlier on January 15, Inner City Press asked Lykketoft who is paying for his trips to the United Arab Emirates, Davos and Jordan. Video here. Later Lykketoft's spokesperson replied, "The PGAs trip to Abu Dhabi is being funded by Govt of UAE and the rest of the trip by the Office of the PGA." The answer is appreciated; we'll have more on this.
 On Next SG, back on December 15 Inner City Press asked Lykketoft if the General Assembly's “dialogues” with candidates will be open -- yes -- and if he thought a candidate currently heading a UN agency should step down to run. (He did not answer this.)
  Lykketoft said so far there are two formal candidates: Croatia's foreign minister Vesna Pusic and former PGA Srgjan Kerim of FYROM. Inner City Press asked, during the press conference, how for example a person like ex-PGA Vuk Jeremic, without the support of his government at present, could run. Lykketoft said that another state could nominate him.
(An aside: if it's true that neither Pusic nor Kerim are on Twitter, what does that say about the place of technology and social media in the current Next SG race?)
  Minutes later, on Periscope (speaking of transparency), Inner City Press asked Lykketoft of a nomination from a non-state would even be processed. No, he indicated. So much for “We the Peoples.” And so much, perhaps, for Eastern Europe, if Crimea becomes a litmus test.
On December 11, Inner City Press asked the foreign ministers of both Ukraine and Lithuania, both members of the Eastern European Group, about who should be next SG. Video here. 
From the answers, it seems at least these two countries will demand a candidate which would condemn a P5 Security Council member's violation of the UN Charter. Since p5 members have a veto over the SG, maybe the post will move beyond the group. We'll be covering this, watch this site. 
F On November 18, after the UN Security Council met behind closed doors on the issue, the month's UN Security Council President Matthew Rycroft of the UK emerged and read a short Elements to the Press on “the issue of the letter that will be written shortly by the President of the Security Council and the President of the General Assembly, on the selection process for the appointment of the next secretary general, and an exchange of views on the basis of a draft letter from the UK and we agreed to do further work, both on the letter and to keep in touch with each other on the timing of that, in order to fulfill our side of the work of the security council. The General Assembly has already begun with their resolution 69/321.”
  But less than an hour before, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin had told the press that “I’m sure the President of the Council is going to speak. And what I proposed, half-jokingly I must admit, that we should set a working group which will have weekly meetings until the end of next year on a draft letter by the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council. In fact, if we stick to the resolution of the General Assembly, it says that they are asking for a joint letter, which is going to describe the process and invite candidates. The process is described in the Charter and inviting candidates is saying yes please, submit your candidates. But if you try to turn it into a lengthy negotiation, some kind of a fancy document, then it will take 12 months for us to achieve this draft letter. So my pitch, which was shared by some colleagues, let’s not over-complicate things. Come on. And if we don’t over-complicated things, then I think it can be done.
   France 24 asked Churkin, You have a candidate? Churkin replied there are seven or eight candidates from Eastern Europe, but France 24 insisted, “From Russia?”
  Churkin explained that Permanent members of the Security Council don't submit UNSG candidates. And so it goes. We note that at the increasingly corrupt UN Correspondents Association, there are no term limits and this year, all six officers are running without opposition, headed by Giampaolo Pioli who previously rented one of his apartments to Sri Lanka's ambassador then screened his war crimes denial film, and now sells seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000. Let's hope this process can lead to an SG who can clear the UN up.
 On September 22, after the Permanent Representatives of Estonia and Costa Rica announced a high level meeting on the topic on September 26; Estonia's Sven Jürgenson said his priority is the best candidate, not necessarily from the Eastern European group. 
   Inner City Press asked if this same push for transparency applies to the current murky process of selecting the new High Commissioner for Refugees, of which it is said Ban Ki-moon alone choose (Danish UNGA President Mogens Lykketoft told Inner City Press he “favors” the Danish ex-Prime Minister but plays no role.)
  Costa Rica's Juan Carlos Mendoza Garcia told Inner City Press that reforms in Secretary General selection could help reform other selections in the UN system. Inner City Press - and the Free UN Coalition for Access -- ask, isn't the refugee top post something of a test case?
  Tellingly, the old UN Correspondents Association demanded to ask - and largely waste - the first question, the time of meritless hierarchy that is precisely what's wrong with the UN. We'll have more on this, and on the September 26 high level meeting.
  Back on July 22 the subject was discussed behind closed doors by the UN Security Council. Afterward UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft emerged and described the meeting as a first step, adding that the UK intends to convene a so-called Arria formula meeting of the Council once candidates come forward.
  Inner City Press asked Rycroft if the issue of regional rotation - that is, the the Next SG post belongs to the Eastern European Group -- came up. He said that it did, adding among other things that the UK does not think that is the most important factor. Periscope video here, for now.
  It was argued to Inner City Press that while the UN Charter in English assumes that the Secretary General is male, that is not the case in the Chinese (or Russian) versions - for what it's worth.
Update: as to Russian, an astute reader notes that
Within Chapter XV of the Charter (“The Secretariat”), in the third sentence of Article 97, where the English version of the Charter says of the Secretary-General, “He shall . . .”, the Russian version instead uses the name “TheSecretary-General shall . . .”, thus avoiding specifying the SG’s gender.  But in Article 99, where the English says, “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten . . .”, the Russian also uses, “. . . in his opinion”.
h/t/ SC Procedure
Статья 97
Секретариат состоит из Генерального Секретаря и такого персонала, который может потребоваться для Организации. Генеральный Секретарь назначается Генеральной Ассамблеей по рекомендации Совета Безопасности. Генеральный Секретарь является главным административным должностным лицом Организации.
Статья 98
Генеральный Секретарь действует в этом качестве на всех заседаниях Генеральной Ассамблеи, Совета Безопасности, Экономического и Социального Совета и Совета по Опеке и выполняет такие другие функции, какие возлагаются на него этими органами. Генеральный Секретарь представляет Генеральной Ассамблее ежегодный отчет о работе Организации.
Статья 99
Генеральный Секретарь имеет право доводить до сведения Совета Безопасности о любых вопросах, которые, по его мнению, могут угрожать поддержанию международного мира и безопасности. 
  The Security Council's President for July, Gerard von Bohemen of New Zealand, spoke at the UNTV stakeout after the consultations. Inner City Press asked him as well about the regional rotation issue. Periscope video for now here. He said he had come up; he said that New Zealand's position is consistent with that of the ACT - Accountability, Coherence and Transparency - group, see background below. Here's from July 22 transcriptio by the NZ UN Mission:
"On the Secretary General appointment, this was the first time the Council had discussed the issue, there was a reference made to the ACT letter and the processes suggested in that, but it was a more general conversation than that. I was very encouraged by both the spirit of the discussion, also by the relative convergence of views, although there was no specific agreement on any outcome, there was a recognition that transparency is an important consideration, and clarity and recognition that the General Assembly membership is very interested in this issue and that the Council should be responding to it. So we agreed that this was the first of a number of conversations we would have as to any specific action that might be taken, that’s for the future."

Inner City Press: How would you characterize the issue of regional rotation in the Eastern European Group, just to give some sense of what people said or what the view is?

A: Well, a number of speakers referred to it, no one disagreed with it, but it wasn’t seen as being inconsistent with the processes, some of the processes that were being recommended.
Background: on June 30, UN Conference Room 11 was full to discuss the Next SG question, in an event organized by the 27 member states (so far) making up ACT (Accountability, Coherence, Transparency). 
  Surprising to some, on the panel was UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft, who said among other things that the Next SG should not necessarily be from the Eastern European Group.
  The room was full -- Inner City Press stood by the door,broadcasting by Periscope and live-tweeting with laptop in hand -- but with a notable contingent of Eastern European representatives. One question identified herself as such: a woman, and Eastern European. Just saying.
   William Pace of WFM reminisced how Boutros Boutros Ghali's second term was vetoed in a deal between the (Bill) Clinton adminstration and then-Senator Jesse Helms, to release dues payments to the UN. 
 The proposal now is for a single seven year term. Mary Robinson says she knows of another P5 country, beyond the UK, which is open to a single seven year term.
  When it was open for questions, Inner City Press (also on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which unlike the older correspondents grouping actually fights for more transparency by the UN) asked why not have a debate among prospective candidates? 
  Why not require disclosure of how much is spend on each candidates campaign, including banning or requiring the disclosure of spending of the funds of UN Programmes (UNDP) or Organizations (UNESCO) for their chiefs to campaign to replace Ban Ki-moon?
   The UK's Rycroft said that prohibitions are not the answer -- agreed -- but did not answer on requiring financial disclosures. (He said we don't want massive spending, one isn't running for president. Which raises another question: what about some form of matching funds for candidates from lower income countries?)
  While much of the focus seems to be on arranging letters from the President of the Security Council to the President of the General Assembly, as Inner City Press asked at the ACT event and asked the new PGA Mogens Lykketoft himself, twice (video), can't the PGA call a high level meeting and invite candidates to present themselves? In this way, the wider world outside the UN could get engaged, and put on some pressure. The anonymous polling of which candidates are “discouraged” by the P5 members should not, FUNCA contends, be repeated.
  Costa Rica's Permanent Representative Juan Carlos Mendoza-García wrapped up, and the event was over. It was promising, but moves for reform and opening up should begin as soon as possible. Watch this site.
  Back on June 1, after several press conference on the topic and a closed door General Assembly session on April 27, the ACT group of 27 states (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency) submitted their page and a half set of proposals to the Presidents of the Security Council and of the General Assembly. 
  Even before these proposals are debated, candidates are edging for an advantage; dark horses are positioning themselves for it the post slips away from the Eastern European Group. Inner City Press has mentioned Helen Clark, using the UN Development Program post to campaign (staff who cross her on Twitter are reprimanded, as Inner City Press reported here.)
 Another "dark horse" candidate, Inner City Press is told, is Swedish foreign minister and former UN official Margot Wallstrom. We'd like to hear from her what she thnks of the UN's handling of allegations of sexual abuse by French "peacekeepers" in the Central African Republic, including the role of another reputed dark horse candidate, or at least candidate to head the UN in Geneva, Susana Malcorra. And what did Ban know, and when did he know it?
  The Free UN Coalition for Access agrees, there should be formal candidacies, platforms -- and adds, why not debates?
  We'd like to hear the Swiss view on this - from today forward, from a new mission spokesperson, Simone Eymann. Her predecessor Adrian Sollberger at his farewell reception on June 1 joked how being an elections officer is like speed dating. He is remaining with the the Foreign Department of Switzerland working in the Cabinet of the Secretary of State, in Berne.
  So why NOT some debates among candidates for Secretary General, when they declare? We'll have more on this.
 How to pick the next UNSG: that was the question on the afternoon of April 27 in what was called a "closed" meeting in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. The meeting being labeled closed, and not on UN webcast, is a bad beginning, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes.
 To counter-act this Inner City Press did its reporting about the meeting, from India urging that there be more than one - a panel - of candidates proposed, to Moldova emphasizing that the next SG should come from Eastern Europe.
 Canada said regional rotation should inform but not determine the selection. The UK to its credit released a copy of the speech by new Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft - but how to square its proposals with David Cameron nominating Andrew Lansley to replace Valerie Amos as Emergency Relief Coordinator, then insisting that the UK should have the post, now in the person of Stephen O'Brien.
Update: With only a few dozen states choosing to speak, the chair decided to try to finish them all -- five states in twelve minutes? -- to end the debate on April 27. This too may not be the right spirit.
Update II: And when the rushed session ended, the next one was announced for May 12, on the "institutional memory" of the Office of the President of the General Assembly.
  Earlier in a 10 am press conference by the campaign called "1 for 7 Billion: Find the Best UN Leader."
  At the April 27 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson for Ban's views on needed reforms. Apparently there are none: it is up to member states, he said, adding that selecting a women would be good. What about pay to play?
  Inner City Press asked the panel if, as happened last time, increase trade and aid funding by a candidates' country should at least be disclosed, if not prohibited. William Pace of WFM replied not only about countries spending hundreds of million of Euros, but also about the heads of international agencies using their posts to campaign.
  Since UNDP's Helen Clark is known to have told associates and underlings she would like to be the next SG, Inner City Press asked the panel for comment. They were diplomatic, including on the UK, said to be a reformer on the SG post, having insisted it retain the Emergency Relief Coordinator positioon, albeit in the person of Stephen O'Brien and not Cameron's first nominee (and National Health Service destroyer) Andrew Lansley.
  Natalie Samarasinghe of UNA-UK said the campaign around (well, against) Lansley was a positive step forward; she said that social media makes secret processes less possible. (But see the replacement at Yemen envoy of Jamal Benomar by a Mauritanian official who has not made public financial disclosure).
  Yvonne Terlingen, now Senior Policy Adviser at WFM,  also cited the OCHA process or campaign. WFM's Pace seemed to conflate the entire UN press corps with the UN Correspondents Association, a group that for example tried to censor Press coverage of how Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous got the job, then tried to get the Press thrown out.
  The new Free UN Coalition for Access seeks to open the UN and these processes - watch this site.

Friday, November 20, 2015

On French Paris Attacks Resolution, Amendments & Delay UNexplained by French Mission, Including to Diplomats


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, November 20, updated -- After France circulated in the UN Security Council the post-Paris Attacks resolution repeatedly talked about by French President Francois Hollande, it immediately on November 19 put it "in blue" for voting, which would then take place as early as November 20. And UNTV - and the French Mission spokesperson to favored scribes - aid the vote would occur, at 3 pm.
But when 3 o'clock came, while UNTV was at the Security Council stakeout, there was no vote. Exiting the Council were the Permanent Representatives of Jordan, New Zealand and Spain, along with Staffan de Mistura and UN OCHA's Stephen O'Brien: an UNrelated humanitarian meeting.
  Other diplomats milled around; there were complaints against the French mission. One said, I shouldn't be learning this from (your) Twitter. Others said there had been amendments, adding an explanation of Article 51 for Russia, so explain post-Libya how the resolution should not be misused. We'll have more on this. For now, UNTV sent this: "Time yet to be decided pm   LIVE   Security Council 7564th meeting:  Adoption: Resolution on counterterrorism"
 In the morning when French Ambassador Francois Delattre entered the Security Council for a regularly scheduled meeting about Peacekeeping Operations featuring Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping, Delattre spoke about the French draft resolution.Periscope video here. As fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:
“We hope for a vote the sooner the better, I cannot tell you when exactly, but it is one week after the attacks... There is no reason frankly there is only good spirit and good vibes so to speak around the table... I am cautious by nature, the mood is really good.
 “We try to have something that can unite everyone at the Security Council the Russians included. We think we should not waste time, we have a good partnership with Ambassador Churkin with all the other ambassadors... it's a question of the last mile, I will tell you more as soon as I know.”
  Inner City Press and others asked about Mali and the attack on the Radisson Hotel there. Delattre said, “We are closely watching the situation with great concern of course but no particular comment at this stage.” No comment? Shouldn't a terrorist attack in sub-Saharan Africa be added to the French draft? Some say the vote might be as early at 1 pm. 
Update: the French mission spokesperson doled this out later to favored correspondents Update II: UNTV says 3 pm: 
 "3:00pm   LIVE   Security Council 7564th meeting: Adoption: Resolution on counterterrorism"
  Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on Thursday afternoon told reporters he saw nothing "offensive in it," that a couple of days could have improved it but that perhaps both resolutions could be adopted,citing 9/11/01 as a precedent.
 On his way into the Security Council's regularly scheduled meeting on Kosovo, Churkin stopped and told the press that “Theirs is much more narrow draft, ours is broader, more fundamental so basically I don't see much of a contradiction. We're studying it. I don't [see] anything particularly offensive. This is a good draft, we are looking at it. Maybe if they took a day or two more to work on it they could have improved a thing or two.”
   On if both draft resolutions could be adopted, Churkin said, “I think they could, because if you think back to events after 9/11, first there was a short draft then a couple of weeks later there was a more comprehensive draft.”
The day before on November 18 after Russia circulatedits resolution, French Permanent Representative Francois Delattre came out to talk to the media, not on UNTV but by the steps. He said, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro:
"Russia requested this meeting on the issue of terrorism, and introduced once again this September 30th draft resolution... I repeated our total determination to fight Daesh, a fight which requires a united response from the whole international community. As you know French President Francois Hollande announced that the Security Council must adopt as soon as possible a resolution on the fight against Daesh. We are actively working to prepare a text that will be short, strong, and focused on the fight against our common enemy, Daesh. Short, strong, and focused on the fight against Daesh. And in this respect we consider the Russian proposal is a contribution that will be carefully studied.
 "I think we have two different texts here. The text we have in mind, and that we are working on very closely, strongly, following President Hollande’s statement, is a text that is strong, short, that is Daesh-centered, and that has one goal after the tragic Paris attack, which is to make sure that the international community is united, finally united, in the fight against Daesh. We all know the threat. The threat is still here. So this is our political responsibility asa the Security Council to have this text adopted, not for long, or endless negotiations about the niceties, but one, simple, clear political message. We need, and this is our responsibility, to have a text which all key actors of the international community can unite in order to act, and to act together." 
Together?

"  On November 17 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced that Ban would sign the condolence book at the French Mission to the UN that afternoon.
  After 2 pm, the UN emailed out “*SG PHOTO-OP ADDED*” so Inner City Press went to the French Mission to cover it.
  In the lobby of 245 East 47th Street, also known as One Dag, the security officer said he would call upstairs to French Mission, on the 44th floor, and get the OK. The guard handed the photo to Inner City Press, which explained why it was here, that the UN has announced this photo-op. The guard took the phone back. Video here.
  “They say no,” the guard said. France 24 was upstairs, and others who did not even report on it. Inner City Press waited in the lobby, exchanging pleasantries with a half dozen diplomats including the Permanent Representative of Palau; passers-by in the One Dag lobby included the Permanent Representative of a country France has criticized for, ironically, freedom of the press. Video here.

  Ban Ki-moon and French Ambassador Francois Delattre came down,accompanied by Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric. The UN convoy pulled out onto Second Avenue. Later Dujarric's office would send out Ban's remarks -- Ban refused the only question asked -- and UNTV would distribute video of Ban and Mrs. Ban signing, even shots of the French hand-picked scribes in attendance. Would Charlie Hebdo have made the cut?
 On November 18, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric:
Inner City Press: You announced yesterday at this signing of the condolence book at the French Mission by the Secretary-General.  So I wanted to know, it seemed like I tried to go to your office.  You weren't there.  I went to MALU [Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit].  It seems like it's a UN thing, so I went to cover it, but I was unable to cover it when they called upstairs from the downstairs…

Spokesman Dujarric:  If it's a UN thing, if it happens in the UN.

Inner City Press:  Right.  Is it the Secretary-General's position where space exists for his outside events that UN journalists should be able to cover it or not?

Spokesman:  We rely on our hosts.
Back on September 28, 2015, the day of the UN Peacekeeping summit at the UN, Inner City Press managed to ask French President Francois Hollande about alleged rapes by French troops in the Central African Republic (CAR) and about French head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous having linked rapes to “recreation” and R&R. Video here.
  Hollande replied that when French troops are charged -- as they have been, in CAR -- France pushes for prosecutions, but also due process. Does that explain the one-year delay in the Sangaris CAR case?  The question was not taken.

  Later on September 28, Inner City Press went to cover the High Level Meeting on Peacekeeping, and found Ladsous slouched in his hair, wanly applauding pledges then glaring up at the photographers booth where Inner City Press was. Something is very wrong at the top of UN Peacekeeping - until it is addressed, the various commitments ring hollow.
A year after French President Francois Hollande tried to privatize the UN Press Briefing Room by having non-French journalists removed, his team on September 27, 2015 adopted a different strategy for the same result. At 8:40 am the UN said there would be a press conference by Hollande in just five minutes, at 8:45 am. Call it innovation.
  Apparently in his press conference, Hollande had many of the seats in the front of the UN Press Briefing Room “reserved” - because Brazil cited this as a precedent for their 11:30 am press conference by Dilma Rousseff (that's another story).  France, returning with Hollande for a session scheduled for 2:15 pm, again tried to control spaces in the front rows, as did the old UN Correspondents Association, which ejected a visiting journalist from “its” seat.
 And the question for Hollande? For Inner City Press, it would be what actions have been taken on the French soldiers alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic. Watch this site.
Update: After Hollande came in, two people who had sat next to Inner City Press through the entire Japanese briefing from 1:30 pm got up, to give their seat to Laurent Fabuis and Royale. Then a lady approached Inner City Press, in full view of UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, and told Inner City Press to move, she's a "minister." Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access said Non, je suis journaliste, je veux poser ma question.
Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon said Peru's President Humala regretted not being present. But he WAS present, next to Hollande. Inner City Press asked Humala about the Trans Pacific Partnership on September 27: watch this site.
Back on September 23, 2014 the entourage of French President Francois Hollande repeatedly ordered the UN accredited Press to leave the UN's Press Briefing Room.
  A briefing by Hollande had been scheduled for 11 am, then was canceled. But at 10:55 am as a previous briefing about climate change was ending, Inner City Press was told to leave the room.
  The question, On whose orders? was not answered. Instead a woman in the French delegation said the room was "reserved." 
   This is not a restaurant, Inner City Press replied, now on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which advocates for the rights of journalists and for a Freedom of Information Act covering the UN.
  Another member of the French delegation said loudly, "They'll take away his accreditation." It was not necessarily an idle threat: the UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric had looked into the room as this happened. 
   Inner City Press said, if UN Media Accreditation -- or UN Security -- tell me to leave, I will. But not before. Video here.
  Meanwhile the representative of the old UN Correspondents Alliance meekly left; previously, UNCA did nothing when previous French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud in this room told a Lebanese reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."
  After a time, the woman from Hollande's entourage said that the chief of UN Media Accreditation, whom she made a point of saying she knows well, was not answering the phone. A French security guard told Inner City Press to leave. But this is not their role, in the UN briefing room.
  Finally the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and the new Permanent Representative to the UN came and sat in the front room with Inner City Press and FUNCA.  Hollande appeared from the doorway Spokesman Dujarric had looked out of.
  Hollande said he had come mostly about climate change, but that a French citizen had been taken hostage in Algeria by a group linked with ISIL or "Da'ech," as he called the group. He said arms deliveries would continue; he noted the previous night's air strikes, by others, on Syria.

  Hollande said he would meet in the afternoon with the Syrian Opposition Coalition's Hadi al Bahra, who he called the only legitimate leader of Syria. Then he left without taking questions.

  The day before, UNCA hosted al Bahra (as they had his predecessor Ahmad Jarba) in the clubhouse the UN gives this group, publicized only to those which pay it dues. Given that UNCA did nothing when Araud told the Lebanese reporter "you are not a journalist, you are an agent," why didn't Hollande hold his press conference in the club of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance?

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

On Western Sahara, UK Confirms to Inner City Press that Morocco FM Comments Arose in UN Security Council, Which Then Supports Ross



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 18 -- Nine days after Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman about Morocco's foreign minister saying UN envoy Christoper Ross couldn't or shouldn't visit the desert areas of Western Sahara, the UN Security Council on November 18 finally met about it.
 InnerCityPro.com was the first to report it, mid-afternoon on November 18, as four Moroccan diplomats huddled outside the Security Council consultations, click here for that.  
 When the Security Council's President for November Matthew Rycroft of the UK emerged with a "Press Element" about the Security Council supporting Ross, and after a question which did not provide any insight into what the Council was saying, Inner City Press asked Rycroft to confirm that the Moroccan minister's comments, that Ross can't visit, had been raised in the Council.
 Yes, he said, and the result is the statement of support for Ross.
 Inner City Press understands that Security Council member Venezuela raised the issue, stating that waiting for Ross' briefing in two or three weeks was not good enough. (Angola's Permanent Representative, it was pointed out, was in Washington DC with his minister.) 
  Speaking for Morocco, Inner City Press is informed, was not its main sponsor France -- they like to not be seen in this role, instead using their "implicit" veto, here -- but rather Jordan. Has Jordan been active on the Western Sahara issue? Or is this a question of Kingdoms?
 Even supports of Morocco - and Inner City Press does speak with them -- have said Morocco's current foreign minister is "not the brightest bulb," as one of them put it.
  The UN has been charged with holding a referendum in Western Sahara, but has yet to do it. In October, when there is usually a Security Council briefing about Western Sahara, there was none. 
 Inner City Press was told it was because UN Envoy Christopher Ross was "in the region." Other sources tell Inner City Press the King of Morocco declined to meet with Ross, preferring to wait out the UN, or at least under the next Secretary General (and next US President).
  Still other sources told Inner City Press the King would travel to Western Sahara on November 6; they call it a provocation. Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it; he said he might have something later.
  After the King did visit Western Sahara, and as summarized rejected ceding anything toward a referendum; Ban Ki-moon said... nothing.
  On November 9, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman:
Inner City Press: the foreign minister of Morocco, Salaheddine Mezouar, told EFE that Mr. Ross cannot visit the, quote, desert regions of Western Sahara by order of the Moroccan Government.  So is he going to?  I guess I want to ask you to tailor this generic statement to the foreign minister saying…  [cross talk]

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  What I'm saying… what I said to Ali, which I will repeat, is that, while he has no immediate plans to visit Western Sahara, he has a right to do so, and that right should not be open to question, whether it's the scope of Mr. Ross' work and his range of activities are set forth by the relevant Security Council resolutions and the Secretary-General.

Inner City Press:  Right.  So… I guess what I'm just saying is, was this statement that you're reading, this is… you're aware of this Moroccan foreign minister statement?

Spokesman:  You've asked me a question.  I've answered it.

Inner City Press:  Okay.

Spokesman:  My answer is a direct response to the question you've asked.
  Before the King's trip, wwhen Ban Ki-moon was touring a photo exhibition in the same UN lobby where now indicted Ng Lap Seng sponsored events (even Wednesday night there was another, trying to sell seats at Ban's table at a Wall Street event in December for $6,000), the UN issued a statement.
On November 5, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric, video here, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: On the Western Sahara statement yesterday, two questions.  Is the Secretary-General aware of a plan by the King of Morocco to actually visit Western Sahara on 6 November, which many people, some people call it a provocation, some people say it's totally within his rights but…?

Spokesman:  I've seen those press reports.

Inner City Press:  Is the statement in some way related to that?  What's his message to the King of Morocco in terms of actually going?

Spokesman:  I think the message to the, the message to the parties, I think, is very much in the message.  It's not a statement to the King of Morocco or to the Front Polisario.  It's a message to the partiers to mark the sombre anniversary of 40 years of unresolved conflict.

Inner City Press:  But is a visit by the king at this time helpful to what the statement is trying-- ?

Spokesman:  I think we'll… we may have more to say on that later.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  And also on this, is it true that Mr. Ross, in the course of his journeys, has been unable to meet with the King of Morocco?

Spokesman:  I don't know.  I will see when his last time was.
On October 9 when the UN's Fourth Committee took up the “question of Western Sahara," the first order of business was a procedural fight about who could testify, on what request and on what topic. The speakers, over several rounds, were Morocco and Senegal on the one hand, Algeria and Uganda on the other. 
Uganda, when on the Security Council and otherwise, believes there should be a referendum on independence in Western Sahara; Senegal apparently does not.
  Inner City Press ran to cover the dispute, but UN Security said it couldn't enter through the main entrance to Conference Room 4, but to enter the gallery through the UN lobby. But that gallery door was locked. Finally from a media booth about the Conference Room, Inner City Pressfilmed and tweeted as Moroccan diplomats worked the room, running over to speak with Cote d'Ivoire for example.
 After it was resolved - the witness would speak, but should focus on Western Sahara - two countries got up and left: Burundi and Burkina Faso. They had apparently come to support Morocco, or France. They left before the first speaker on Western Sahara (who in his first line called it Moroccan Sahara). There will be more sessions: watch this site.
  There was also testimony about French nuclear tests in French Polynesia, New Caledonia and several rounds between Spain and the UK about Gibraltar: is it or is it not a tax haven? The room was emptying out. This will be continued.
  In advance of the Western Sahara session in the UN's Fourth Committee, SADR Foreign Minister Ould Salak spoke and took questions at Independent Diplomat on 20th Street in Manhattan on October 8.  In his opening he said France uses it veto on the UN Security Council to block human rights monitoring. Inner City Press asked him about the denial of that by France and its previous Ambassador to the UN, now to Washington. Ould Salak replied that France uses the “Group of Friends” -- the P5 minus China but plus Spain -- so it doesn't have to openly use its veto.
  This puts France's “veto restraint” proposals in a different light - but we'll have more on that in a separate story. In this piece, written at ID on 20th Street, we note that Carne Ross called it the “Group of Enemies” of Western Sahara, and the worst form of diplomacy.
   AFP asked if Ban is going to Western Sahara -- seems Morocco is blocking it (with Ban Ki-moon, it doesn't take much); a Spanish journalists asked about the role of Spain, on which he hope to have more. The Security Council was meeting about Haiti, with its own colonial history. We'll have more on this.
  The UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINURSO, which has yet to hold any referendum, was unanimously "renewed" for a year back on April 28, 2015 by the UN Security Council. Inner City Press published Explanation(s) of Vote, below.
   On September 25 when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with Spain's King Felipe VI, the UN said Ban "emphasized the need for a renewed push to resolve the situation in Western Sahara." Full readout below. Ban also raised Western Sahara with the President of Mauritania. The word "human rights" was not in either read-out. Here's Spain:
"The Secretary-General met today with H.M. King Felipe VI of Spain. They discussed a number of global challenges, including sustainable development and climate change.The Secretary-General thanked Spain for its support for the UN’s efforts in Libya. He also commended Spain for its role in the Security Council. Finally, the Secretary-General emphasized the need for a renewed push to resolve the situation in Western Sahara."
 There was some "pool" color, concluding that "speaking in English, but hardly audible, Ban and the Spanish King mentioned the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. Felipe VI was wearing today a lapel pin with the logo of the event. "
 And here's Mauritania:
"The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, President of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The Secretary-General expressed appreciation for the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and requested Mauritania’s active support in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

"The Secretary–General and President Abdel Aziz discussed the security and humanitarian situation in the Sahel and the need to enhance regional cooperation to address terrorism, displacement, migration and illegal trafficking. The Secretary-General stressed the urgency of resolving the question of Western Sahara and thanked Mauritania for its continued support to the mediation process.  [He also commended Mauritania’s efforts to promote an inclusive political dialogue in Niger.]"
  And on human rights monitoring? And on Anders Kompass?
Update: the bracketed final line was removed two hours later by the UN.
 
  Back in April, Venezuela said human rights monitoring should have been included, and the African Union should have been allowed to address the Council. Angola, citing Chad and Nigeria as well, echoed this.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Moroccan Permanent Representative Omar Hilale a series of questions: about what Venezuela said, about the African Union, injured protesters, and why Frente Polisario couldn't speak at the same microphone.

  Hilale asked if Venezuela was the right country to speak of human rights.  Here now is Inner City Press' transcription of Venezuela's explanation of vote:

"The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has voted in favor of the resolution renewing the mandate of MINURSO. MINURSO, as we are convinced of its important role in supervising the cease fire, reducing the threat of unexploded ordnance and mines, fostering confidence building measures between the parties in order to bring about the referendum, that is in step with the primary mandate in step with Resolution 690 of 1991. These efforts and the facilitation and the efforts deployed by the Secretary General are aimed at bringing about an agreement between the parties. MINURSO, to support this, must continue to provide its support to a series of assistance programs aimed at addressing the difficult situation faced by the Sahrawi families that are separated, in many cases, also breathing a new life into direct negotiations between the Polisario Front and Morocco.

"However, we wish to express certain concerns over the procedure used in the drafting of the resolution we have adopted. We are presented a text that was previously agreed upon by the Group of Friends of Western Sahara, which did not address the legitimate concerns and proposals that were made by numerous countries that are interested in this issue, Venezuela among them. These proposals were aimed at strengthening the role of MINURSO and the promotion and protection of human rights of the population in the Western Sahara, bearing in mind the recommendations made by the Secretary General in his report and the features of all the UN missions. It is necessary, then, that the future negotiation processes on the matter before us sees an improvement in the working methods with the aim of helping to bring about a broad discussion that is inclusive and transparent.

"In the context of the proposals made, the amendment that sought to increase the regularity of the review of the topic by the Council was not taken on board. There is also one aimed at reaffirming the responsibilities of this body in bringing about a fair and lasting solution to the situation in Western Sahara, through the holding of a referendum on self determination, that would allow for a process of decolonization, a situation that has has lasted for more than four decades. It is essential that we ensure the implementation of resolution 690 of 1991, which set forth for, provided for the holding of the referendum.

"We are concerned that without a referendum, the process of colonizing Western Sahara will continue including the deterioration of human rights for the Sahrawi people and the illegal exploitation of their natural resources, all of this to the detriment of stability and peace in the region. Further, we lament that the consultations held on this topic were not proceeded by an open meeting in which we could ensure the participation of the special envoy of the African Union for Western Sahara, the former president Joaquim Chissano.

"In the light of the request from that regional organization which, together with the United Nations, is facilitating the negotiation process between the parties, it is a paradox that there is exclusion from the dialogues in this body of a strategic UN ally in the efforts to find solutions to conflicts that affect peace and security in the African continent. We hope that the Council can correct this omission in the short term.

"To conclude, we should like to reiterate the responsibility that this Council has in working with resolve toward a fair and lasting solution to the colonial situation endured by the Sahrawi people, solving it with a move towards self determination in including the option of independence pursuant to international law and working, with resolve, towards a fair and lasting solution according to to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter."

Here is Inner City Press' transcription of Angola's explanation:

"The Security Council has just adopted Resolution 2218, extending the mandate of the United Nations mission for the referendum of Western Sahara. This explanation of vote is made as the coordinator of the African state members of the Security Council, namely Angola, Chad and Nigeria, taking into account the position adopted and recommended to us by the African Union Peace and Security Council with the view of playing a more active and constructive role in the search for solutions to the Western Sahara issue.

"The three African member states of the Security Council voted in favor of the draft resolution convinced that, first, the Security Council is really committed to the self determination of the people of Western Sahara. Second, that the Security Council is committed in ending the current impasse and to the achievement of progress towards a political solution. Third, that the Security Council recognizes that achieving a political solution would contribute to stability and security in the Sahel region. And fourth, that the Security Council encourages the parties to demonstrate further political will towards a solution to continue the process of negotiations, and recognizes that the consolidation of the status quo is unacceptable as stated by other speakers this morning.

"In this context, we would like to specifically encourage the parties to abide by the resolution’s provisions, take them into full account, and that tangible progress be achieved by the holding of negotiations without further delay towards the referendum for self determination of Western Saharan people."

And from China, as transcribed by Inner City Press:

"Thank you Madam President. China supports the extension of the mandate of the UN mission for the referendum of Western Sahara and hopes that the mission will continue to play a constructive role in stabilizing the situation in Western Sahara and assisting the implementation of confidence building measures.

China’s position on the question of Western Sahara is consistent and remains unchanged. Based on the above, China has voted in favor of Resolution 2118, adopted by the Council just now.
China knows that some Council members have concerns about the resolution. While the council members were having consultations on this resolution there should have been more time arranged for it, and there should have been more patience, so as to listen extensively to different opinions, and through more sufficient consultations seek a maximum consensus and get the widest support. I thank you."

 UNlike China, Morocco's Hilale called the African Union "toxic" on this issue, saying that having made up it mind the AU should not address the Council.

  Inner City Press asked how this is different, say, from the European Union addressing the Council about Kosovo. (Hilale said every situation is different: the old "sui generis").

  Inner City Press asked why Polisario couldn't speak at the UNSC stakeout where, for example, private citizen Hilary Clinton recently did. Hilale said Hilary Clinton is with a member state. But so are a lot of people.