As Microsoft Speaks In UNSC, Crosses Out YouTube & Facebook, Corporate UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 11 -- The question of corporate influence and even bribery in the UN is one that has to be asked, as on May 11 Microsoft is given a chair to speak in the UN Security Council. Speech here.

  This questioning is needed in light of the unfolding bribery scandal involving not only former President of the General Assembly John Ashe but also the Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon, from the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management selling document changes to the Department of Public Information doing no due diligence of those sponsoring events with Ban and even the UN's slavery memorial, see OIOS audit Paragraphs 37-40 and 20(b). And see DPI's eviction, video here.

  Microsoft VP Steven A. Crown in his speech crossed out the names of competitors, Google's YouTube and Facebook, replacing them with "the Internet." How much is a chair in the Security Council worth?

  The topic of counter-terrorism is, undoubtedly, a serious one, and we'll cover it in a separate article. Here are two paragraphs, in fairness, of the UNSC President Statement adopted:

 “The Security Council notes with concern that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Qaida, and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, craft distorted narratives that are based on the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of religion to justify violence, which are utilized to recruit supporters and Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTFs), mobilize resources, and garner support from sympathizers, in particular by exploiting information and communications technologies, including through the Internet and social media...

   “The Security Council, accordingly, requests the Counter-Terrorism Committee, in close consultations with the CTED and other relevant United Nations bodies and international and regional organizations in particular the CTITF office, as well as interested Member States, to present a proposal to the Security Council by 30 April 2017 for a 'comprehensive international framework,' with recommended guidelines and good practices to effectively counter, in compliance with international law, the ways that ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities use their narratives to encourage, motivate, and recruit others to commit terrorist acts, including with a counter narrative campaign...”

 Back on March 28, the corporate UN question also arose in connection with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdictions.

   A press conference on the topic was held at the beginning of a round of talks. Inner City Press asked, what will be the role and influence of corporate interests in these talks in the UN?

  Currently Macau-based businessman is under house arrest indicted for allegedly paying bribes in the UN, including through South South News, which funded the UN Correspondents Association which then gave Ng a photo op with Ban Ki-moon.

  The answer from the podium on March 28 was that business interests, as a "part of civil society," can speak. (The Pew representative seems about to answer, but it didn't happen. We would welcome a Pew response on this.)

  The Ng Lap Seng - South South News tale, like that of Sheri Yan and her Global Sustainability Foundation (which until South South News, Ban assigned to OIOS for a self-audit), shows that at the UN, corporate interests can even be behind the NGOs or Association, even purported journalists' organizations.

  Tellingly, even on UNCLOS the first question was taken by UNCA, by a representative who was pre-positioned for, filmed and laughed out Inner City Press' physical ouster by UN Security on the orders of DPI's Cristina Gallach on February 19. This is how the UN works, or doesn't. We'll be following this UNCLOS process - including corporate influence.

  Note that previously, before so digging into UN corruption, Inner City Press covered similar Pew events, like here, without having to question the corporate capture of Ban's UN, and its descent into censorship.

As Inner City Press was staking out the UN Security Council meeting on March 24 about Western Sahara and Morocco's ordering out of the UN Peacekeeping mission there, a figure rarely seen at the stakeout approached.

  Giampaolo Pioli the head of the UN Correspondents Association came over to where Inner City Press was typing and editing audio and video and said, “You're an asshole.”

   Moments later, Inner City Press now with its UN accreditation pass downgraded to Non-Resident Correspondent by UN Department of Public Information chief Cristina Gallach at the behest of Pioli went to ask UN Security not to lock the glass door to the Security Council before the Council's president spoke at the stakeout.

  As Inner City Press asked the guard not to lock the door to journalists, UNCA's Pioli again said, “You're an asshole. I'm telling you that you're an asshole. Quote me.” Audio here.

   What's behind this? How did a journalists club turn into a club against a journalist, and why? Beyond Pioli's financial relationship with Palitha Kohona, who as Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN Pioli unilaterally granted a "UN" screening of a war crimes denial film, there is for example the matter of South South News.

  South South News is depicted in the October 2015 criminal complaint against John Ashe, Ng Lap Seng, Frank Lorenzo and others as a vehicle for bribery, to the tune of $12 million.

  UNCA under Pioli took SSN's money, and gave its funding Ng Lap Sent a photo op with Ban Ki-moon. But Pioli's UNCA also gave South South News a "journalism award," and SSN in term featured videos of Pioli, here - and of Pioli's tenant Kohona, here.

Pioli and his rental of one of his apartments to an accused war criminal, involved in Sri Lanka's notorious White Flag killings, then screening of his tenant's film, played a key role.

But there have been many enablers, among the Gulf and Western media on UNCA's board; there are been others to the very top of the UN who have benefited from and left unchecked this war on investigative journalism.

This as Pioli's UNCA took money from now-indicted Ng Lap Seng's South South News, gave SSN a journalism award and Ng a photo op with Ban Ki-moon. After after the indictments, Pioli was selling half-tables with Ban for $6,000 on Wall Street in December 2015. That Ban's UN tries to shield this from coverage is telling.

  To try to oust or wipe out coverage of failure in Sri Lanka and more recently Burundi and Yemen to name but two is, of course, convenient, as well as stopping or hindering aggressive coverage of the expanding UN scandal in this waning year.

  Inner City Press spoke and speaks out when Reuters took stories without credit, even claimed "exclusives" for things earlier published by Inner City Press. Reuters bureau chief made an anti-Press filing with the UN's Stephane Dujarric. Then when it was leaked, he wrote as Reuters to Google to get it blocked from Search, ostensibly as copyrighted. "His" reporter has been worse, in ways.

   Margaret Besheer of Voice of America, who after being exposed in 2012 and her bosses saying in writing theirattempt to oust Inner City Press for her was wrong -- is at it again.  She was standing pre-positioned at the UN gate on February 19, 2016 when Inner City Press was physically thrown out. These are tax dollars at work, violating the First Amendment.

  There are more - former AFP, the current ones hardly better - and others who just follow along. Now their "leader" Pioli has come to the stakeout, not to report anything - he rarely does - but to loudly call a critic, who actually writes stories, an "asshole." And not one of them did anything. At the UN the journalists' club has become a club against a journalist.
 
  Inner City Press replied that it believed and believes Pioli is corrupt, that he took rent money from Palitha Kohona then unilaterally granted Kohona's request as Sri Lanka's Ambassador for an UNCA / “UN” screening of his government's war crimes denial film, “Lies Agreed To.” And that Pioli after demanding censorship of Inner City Press' coverage has used UNCA and now DPI to try to throw Inner City Press out of the UN, just as Pioli first threatened.


Ban with Pioli, who told Inner City Press, "You are an asshole." Credit UN Photo/Evan Schneider

  Another UNCA board member -- Inner City Press quit its elected position on that board in 2012, saying openly that Pioli was corrupt, now in taking money from indicted Ng Lap Seng's South South News and granting him a photo op with Ban Ki-moon -- said such language should not be used at the stakeout.

  But it was Pioli who approached Inner City Press, which hasn't willingly spoke with Pioli in more than a year.

  So it is for this person that Cristina Gallach first ordered Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice on February 19 and on whom she has since leaned in trying to defend her February 19 decision, which was reached without once speaking with Inner City Press.


Ban shakes with Cristina Gallach, who threw ICP out of UN on Feb 19, 2016 on 2 hours notice. Credit UN Photo

  Her rationale was that Inner City Press secretly filmed a closed meeting, but that doesn't stand up: the meeting was nowhere listed as closed, and Inner City Press openly live-streamed and even live Tweeted it: hardly secret.

  So the fallback argument was that since Inner City Press covered the UNCA event in the UN Press Briefing Room from one of the glassed-in interpreters' booths, in order to avoid just such a response as Pioli's “asshole” on March 24, it had violated some as-yet unproduced rule about not being in an interpreters booth.

  But on March 23 Inner City Press observed and filmed two non-interpreters in the “other” interpreters booth in the UN Press Briefing Room while UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq read out statements and did NOTHING about the use of the interpreters booth.

  On March 24, Inner City Press asked Haq about it, UN Transcript.

 On his way out of the UN Press Briefing Room, Haq said to Inner City Press, “Liar.” This is the atmosphere created, when DPI and the Spokesperson's office have allowed a character like Pioli, angry at coverage of his financial dealings with Sri Lanka's ambassador, to essentially run the asylum.

   It seems clear now that there must be a complete reversal of  Gallach's February 19 order, based on false facts (closed meeting, “secret” filming), a dubious rule and at the behest of an UNCA boss who barely writes articles, seeks to control UN office space and comes to the UN Security Council stakeout to call a critic an asshole. We'll have more on this.

UNICEF Veneman's $5.8 Million E-Mail Switch Denounced by Whistleblowers, Defended

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un5unicef082409.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 24 -- The jewel of the UN system, its children's agency UNICEF, now not only refuses to provide simple budget information such as how much it spent flying country representatives to New York for a photo op with director Ann Veneman -- it defends without putting a dollar value on an initiative to switch all of UNICEF from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook.

Whistleblowers within UNICEF say the switch was entirely Ms.Veneman's idea, that she worked on Microsoft as George W. Bush's Secretary of Agriculture and proposes to spend $5.8 million entirely unnecessarily. Below is what Inner City Press received from within UNICEF, then UNICEF's official response.

Subj: Scandal in UNICEF
From: [Address withheld due to fear of retaliation]
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 8/23/2009 8:30:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Dear Matthew, Your article on Friday 21 August 2009 titled "At UNICEF, Quarter Million Dollar Photo-Ops Opaque for a week, Even a Child Could Answer" was very good, although it was very sad for UNICEF. Here is another example of how UNICEF under the inept leadership of Ann Veneman wastes its public and donor contributions. We are extremely concerned about what is going on in our Organization. Signed by: Concerned UNICEF Staff.

$5.8M being spent to please Ann Veneman to install Microsoft Outlook as her e-mail preference.

In the name of the Office Modernization Investment Project, UNICEF is spending USD5.8M, which would have gone otherwise to the world poorest children, to switch from the current well-functioning IBM Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange. Not only this project was opposed by some of UNICEF’s own IT experts because there was no compelling technical reasons for such migration but also confirmed by the world’s IT consulting leader, Gartner Group (please refer to the research paper dated 22 December 2008) that the migration from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange environment would yield no return on investment (ROI). Furthermore many parts of the IBM Lotus Connections packages are far better than what Microsoft has to offer. This research paper goes on to say that end-user demand, for example, senior executives who came to appreciate Outlook on their previous assignments, is the No.1 e-mail migration driver, based on emotions and not focusing on business issues.

According to the whistleblower, this is what is exactly happening in UNICEF. When Ann Veneman came to UNICEF in 2005, the first thing she complained about was her e-mail; “why aren’t we using Outlook? I want us to move to Microsoft.” For the last four years she has been pressing the IT division to migrate from IBM Lotus Notes application to the Microsoft environment to which she was accustomed while working with an US Government agency. Ann Veneman fired her first IT director in 2006 giving him the golden hand-shake, and then personally involved in selecting the new CIO who was familiar with Microsoft Office Suite. As soon as the new CIO joined UNICEF in the summer of 2007 she pressed him to migrate into the Microsoft environment. It was supposed to happen over a year ago…..He has just gotten his two year contract extended on the condition that he would finally deliver on the commitment made to introduce Outlook.

This is quite ironic when the UN has recently upgraded its IBM Notes to version 8 (from 6.5) for about 30,000 employees. The latest version apparently is quite powerful and users love it. Even non-IT people in UNICEF are saying it's hard to cost-justify migrating e-mail from IBM to Microsoft. Some staff who used to work with other agencies using Microsoft emphasize that IBM Lotus Notes products are superior to Microsoft. Calculating the e-mail migration cost is relatively easy. But calculating a tangible return on investment (ROI) is much harder, yet UNICEF’s own business case proposal inflated this cost savings which were disputed by some of their own experts.

In the current economic environment, moving e-mail users from Notes/Domino release to Outlook/Exchange is difficult to justify when you think about unnecessary user training for over 12,000 staff, 80 percent of them are spread over 150 field offices all over the world. To make the matter more complicated, other mission critical data are stored in Lotus Notes applications

Of course this Office Modernization Investment Proposal went through various internal review processes but controlled by the CIO and Ann Veneman whose only interest is to make sure she gets “Outlook”, no matter what. No one dares to say in public this is a waste of money and time in UNICEF.

Because there is censorship within UNICEF, from fear of retailiation and also a loyalty so extreme it sometimes hurts the organization by keeping it from improving, Inner City Press publishes the above.

Inner City Press sought a response from UNICEF. Unlike the eight day delay before responding, without dollar figures, to Inner City Press' August 13 request for how much two UNICEF's events flying in over 100 people cost, this time UNICEF to its credit provided at least some response quickly:

Subj: Re: Press Questions re UNICEF's switch to Microsoft Outlook
From: [spokesperson at] unicef.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 8/24/2009 5:19:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Dear Matthew, UNICEF decided to migrate to Microsoft Exchange/Outlook because doing so meets organizational needs and priorities. The process was based strictly on organizational needs and cost-saving options that we have studied carefully. UNICEF has looked at the ongoing licensing burden, as part of its assessment of options, and found significant cost-savings based on this decision. The evidence shows this effort will be a building block in a superior email and communication environment. UNICEF is one of several UN agencies taking this step.

But as we asked about the events flying UNICEF reps in from all over the world for photographs with Ann Veneman, running for re-election to UNICEF's top post in 2010, how much in public funds is being spent? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un5unicef082409.html

UN Admits $3 Million Satyam Order Was An “Error,” Ledger Evidence Disappears

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un5satyam033009.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 30 -- In the UN's contracting with the Indian Enron Satyam, a $3 million purchase order appeared and then disappeared, the UN has admitted to Inner City Press. But even the explanation raises more question. On March 23, Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq

Inner City Press: a Satyam question. In reviewing the website of the Procurement Division, it seems like there was a contract reached for just over $6 million in July 2008, but there were two purchase orders of $3.3 million in June and July 2008... What explains the discrepancy between what was the purchase orders and the contracts? .. the deal that runs through 2013, has all the money in fact been paid and is there any provision for it to be returned? It seems from this that the money was already actually paid out.

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Throughout the system the various bodies of the UN will wrap up the contracts. The details of that may need some fine-tuning, it may need to be worked out in the coming months. But, certainly, all the contracts are being wrapped to whatever extent that things that are already in the pipeline need to be completed, some will be completed, but it will all be shut down.

Inner City Press asked, but why would the UN apparently have paid in advance for work to be done until 2013? The question arose in the context of the UN having misspoken earlier this month about its Procurement Division's coverage of the UN-affiliated International Computing Center, and belated admission that Satyam serves the UN through ICC contracts as well.

Two days after the question was raised, a further explanation was given:

Subject: Clarification from Procurement Division
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply @un.org>
To: Inner City Press
Sent: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:22 pm

We have the following clarification from the Procurement Division to a question that you asked earlier on Satyam:

We understand that there was a question raised by Mr. Lee of Inner City Press concerning our contract with Satyam at the noon briefing on Monday, 23 March 2009. Two (2) Purchase Orders in June and July 2008 referred to by Mr. Lee are identical. It is a duplicate of data entry inadvertently processed. The Purchase Order (P.O.) No. PS-14468 in the amount of US$3,300,500 was obligated (processed in our procurement management system and recorded in IMIS) in June 2008 but was signed in July 2008. We inadvertently picked up this P.O. twice in our reporting system.

This P.O. is what we call an internal P.O. to obligate the funds in connection with the Contract No. PD/CO102/08 with Satyam, which has the Not to Exceed (NTE) amount of US$6,025,933 effective 18 July 2008 for a term not less than five (5) years. We need to issue an internal P.O. to obligate the funds for payment purpose in IMIS since our contract document, which is produced in MS Word, has no technical interface and mechanism to record obligation in IMIS. Obligation of funds does not mean payment. A total of $3,300,500 was reserved for payment in conjunction with the contract and payment is processed only upon receipt and acceptance of services delivered. For your information, a total payment by the UN under this contract is $1,457,560 out of the contract NTE value of $6,025,933 as of today.

A duplicate entry of PS-14468 in June 2008 was removed from our Purchase Order Award in June 2008, as it is a genuine error.

For the UN to acknowledge when it makes “a genuine error” is rare, and appreciated. But experts consulted by Inner City Press since receipt of the UN's “clarification” question, among other things, how changes can be made so cavalierly to the general ledger, and how this could have happened. We will continue to pursue it.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un5satyam033009.html

UN and Microsoft, Conflicts of Interest and Increased Non-Reporting, Tech Help

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/un1conflicts100208.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- During the UN's General Debate last week, Inner City Press stopped the UN's Special Advisor on Africa Cheick Sidi Diarra on his way past the entrance sign to the event that seemed incongruous: the Microsoft African Heads of State Reception. That same day, Microsoft's Bill Gates was allowed to speak from the podium in the General Assembly Hall. How could a particular private company, even one the size of Microsoft, be treated as if it were a country, and be given a venue like this at the UN?

On October 2, Cheick Sidi Diarra gave a press conference on his other role, regarding land-locked less developed countries, and Inner City Press asked him about the Microsoft event, if he was there in his official capacity or as a sibling. Video here, from Minute 30:39.

Cheick Sidi Diarra said that the event was co-sponsored by his Office and Microsoft, "to bring Bill Gates to the UN" and as part of Microsoft's strategy for the Continent. Inner City Press asked if Cheick Modibo Diarra, listed as Microsoft's Ambassador for Africa, was Cheick Sidi Diarra's brother.

"It's become very personal," Cheick Sidi Diarra complained.

"But he has the same name," Inner City Press said. Not said, but relevant, is that Inner City Press on September 29 asked a senior UN representative about the Microsoft event and was told an answer was forthcoming. None was received.

Cheick Sidi Diarra said that his brother is a UNESCO Ambassador, and Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson moved the questioning on. Video here, from Minute 33:48.

While Cheick Sidi Diarra seems to be a nice person and has often stopped in the hall to answer Africa questions from Inner City Press, it seems like a possible conflict of interest to allow him to co-sponsor in the UN an event for a corporation that his brother works for. What safeguards are in place at the UN? Apparently none.

In a mark of backsliding ethics at the UN, the number of UN staff who have refused to file required financial disclosures grew by 500% before 2006 and 2007, from 34 staff members in 2006 to 172 in 2007, according to a just-released internal report which Inner City Press has obtained and puts online here.

The report, by PriceWaterhouse Coopers the "despite considerable follow-up by the Ethics Office and by the heads of departments, there was a high rate of non-compliance by staff members than for the previous year." This may explain Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon state to his senior staff in a recent speech in Turin, that he tried to lead by example "but no one followed."

This same report states that PwC "identified 21 cases... as having a potential conflict of interest. In relation to these 21 cases, nineteen staff members accepted PwC's advice regarding the appropriate compliance arrangement."

Did these include the Cheick Diarra brothers? Did it include Jane Holl Lute, serving in UN Peacekeeping and now Peacebuilding while her husband is President Bush's war czar for Afghanistan and Iraq? In both cases, when Inner City Press asked the question, the response was that the question was inappropriate or too personal. But these are structural conflicts of interest. The UN must be reformed.

Footnotes: Also on info technology, and on Microsoft, if you are a Lebanese minister in New York and you need to send confidential documents to your President in Beirut, where do you go? Next to the bar, of course, in the UN Delegates Lounge. There you'll find a help window leading to a room which until recently had been vacant for more than a decade. There are three desktop computers inside, one a wide-screen Macintosh, and two Chinese Lenovos running Microsoft operating systems. There are ten laptop which are lent out to Ambassadors. One of the desk top computers is secure, not run on UN wireless. The diplomats are promised secrecy, right inside the UN. Meanwhile, the conflux between the UN's computer operations and intelligence has never been closed.

To come full circle to the land-locked less developed states, Inner City Press asked Cheick Sidi Diarra if his office would help the undeniably land-locked South Ossetia, or South Sudan. Apparently the Office helps only UN member states. What is its position on pipelines, like BTC or Chad-Cameroon? This question wasn't answered. The Office coordinates with other UN agencies. How about Peacekeeping on shipping to the quite landlocked Darfur? How about coordinating with Jane Holl Lute's Peacebuilding Commission, on Burundi and Central African Republic? We hope to have more on this.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1conflicts100208.html