At UN, As France Joins Arms Trade Treaty, Selling Warships to Russia Despite Its Own UNSC Speeches

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- One year after the Arms Trade Treaty passed with more than 20 abstentions, countries came back to the UN to deposit documents with the UN Office of Legal Affairs and join.

  Among the joiners was France, which before last year's vote had air-dropped weapons into the Nafusa Mountains in Libya. Now there was an even more clear and pressing questions.

  Given France's speeches this year in the Security Council about Russia, how is its move to sell Mistral warships to Russia consistent with the Arms Trade Treaty? What does it mean?

  A year ago in the UN General Assembly there were more than 20 abstentions, including the two most populous countries on Earth, China and India, and the most populous predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia.

Afterward, Inner City Press asked ATT president Peter Woolcott, after thanking him on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, about criticism of his allowing, before a promised ruling, Mexico and others to make an argument against the UN meaning of consensus. 

  He replied that there was a speakers list that he followed. He said he personally does not favor negotiating under the rule of consensus. Other might say: it showed.

 Inner City Press asked Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, who gave a thoughtful answer about "no vetoes," that may resonate in the UN Budget Committee.

   It was announced that Angola did not abstain, but voted Yes (hence, 22 abstentions, still quite populous.)In speeches before Tuesday's vote, as Syria's Bashar Ja'afari spoke, US Ambassador Susan Rice was walking out. After that, a full hour into the speeches, Qatar's delegation rolled in. They ended up abstaining. Qatar supports rebels in Syria.

Sudan on the other hand said it was abstaining, citing the failure to address the arming of “mutinous” groups, like the SPLM-North and rebels in Darfur.

Russia, which by a point of order Thursday night put an end to the Mexico-launched attempt to redefine consensus, on Tuesday morning zeroed in on what knowledge of genocide might mean, in Article 6.3. Its Ambassador Churkin said Russia would not have broken consensus on March 28, but would now abstain, as did China. It's hard to call this consensus. Watch this site.

On Haiti Cholera, UN Rebuffs Expert Gallon's Report Saying "Pay Compensation," Nail & Mail Service of Lawsuit on Ban Ki-moon: Scofflaw

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 3, with a song -- On having brought cholera to Haiti, the UN on February 28 rebuffed the call of its own UN Independent Expert on Human Rights in Haiti Gustavo Gallon that "diplomatic difficulties must be overcome to ensure a prompt end to the epidemic and provide full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people."

  Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.

Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.

Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond thissong, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:

On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...

Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.

8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.

That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.

   

As Ban Ki-moon Talks Rule of Law, On Haiti Cholera UN Won't Say If Accepted Legal Papers: Song

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 19, with a song -- The "Rule of Law" debate in the UN Security Council on February 19 has been noted by some because it still lists Ukraine as the 34th of 67 speakers. But of "grave concern," as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon characterized Ukraine, was Ban's opening remarks, compared for example to the UN's record of impunity in Haiti.

  Ban said "the rule of law is at the heart of our work at the United Nations." But after being accused in detail of bringing cholera to Haiti, Ban and UN refused to even accept legal papers from the class action lawsuit that's been filed.

  Inner City Press on February 13 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, I understand the position of not commenting on the cholera litigation, but maybe you can ask the Office for Legal Affairs whether the UN has actually accepted service or process of the papers. There were some earlier problems, and I’ve heard from them that they actually managed to serve two individuals so I’m asking you, just a yes or no answer whether papers were received.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, I can’t give either because I will need to check.

  But five days have passed and no answer has been received. The "two individuals" namelessly referred to by Inner City Press in its question were Ban Ki-moon and Edmond Mulet, who spoke on the issue last Fall as shown in the Inner City Press YouTube video here and embedded below.

   In the face of such stonewalling, of such a blue wall of silence, Inner City Press today uploads the first, raw version of its new song on the topic, here.

Last month the UN's envoy on cholera in Haiti Pedro Medrano was quoted by Agence France Presse that legal wrangling over the epidemic had to be put aside in order to tackle the sweeping advance of the disease.

   Since when Inner City Press has asked, the UN has repeatedly refused to comment on, or access legal papers in, the class action lawsuit against it for bringing cholera to Haiti, this seemed strange.

  At the UN's January 23 noon briefing Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq how much if anything -- beyond its credibility -- the lawsuit has cost the UN, and if the UN has accepted service of legal papers.

  Haq said the UN will not comment on the lawsuit.  But, Inner City Press pointed out, the UN's Medrano DID comment on the lawsuit, saying it should be put aside.

  Then Haq said that is not the quote, pulling out the AFP article. It appears the UN choseAFP or even this AFP correspondent Tim Witcher to make its pitch for money while avoiding dealing with its responsibility for the cholera. (The correspondent Witcher was called on first at the January 23 noon briefing, and said to Haq, "On behalf of Pam, I welcome you," referring to Pamela Falk of CBS, the president of the United Nations Correspondents Association now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance.)

  How could that AFP article not have pursued the lawsuit angle? This is how the UN -- and its chosen scribes -- work, or don't work. And it is being challenged and protested by the new Free UN Coalition for Access.

    On the fourth anniversary of the earthquake in Haiti, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a 312-word statement to UN staff there. He began, appropriately, with "grief" - but nowhere in the statement did he mention the word "cholera," much less that the UN is nearly universally viewed as having brought cholera to Haiti, through a deployment of peacekeepers from Nepal coupled with lax UN sanitation practices.

In New York, the UN dodged the claims and questions from Inner City Press about if it has standing claims commissions anywhere -- the answer is no -- and if it even now screens for cholera before deployment -- the answer is still no. Most recently, the UN has refused to accept service of legal papers in the class action lawsuit filed against it. And see below:

   When asked inside the UN about bringing cholera to Haiti, spokespeople for UN Peacekeeper have for months been telling the Press "we have nothing more to say," or more recently, "that is not a yet or no question."

  In November 2013 Inner City Press went two blocks from the UN to a panel discussion with UN Peacekeeping and the US State Department, to see if there might be a more candid answer.

  The guest was supposed to be UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who inside the UN refuses to answer Press questions. (Video here, UK coverage here.) But he was replaced, apparently at the last minute, by his deputy Edmond Mulet, once the head of the UN's mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH.

When Mulet and the US State Department's Victoria Holt were asked about cholera in Haiti, only Mulet answered. (Holt answered another question about zero tolerance for sexual abuse, but said nothing about the US-trained 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army being implicated in 135 rapes in Minova.)

Mulet essentially blamed the cholera death on Haiti itself, noting the "same strain" -- that would be, from Nepal, brought along with the peacekeepers from there by the UN -- spread to the Dominican Republic but didn't kill anyone.

  Mulet said it spread to Cuba too, but the government there was more organized. But no follow-up was allowed on the main point: it was the UN peacekeepers' negligent santitation practices that put their fecal material in the river and introduced cholera to Haiti. Have any improvements been made since?

  The venue was the Museum of Tolerance; the host was UNA-USA. The mood was how to make the UN attractive to Americans, or really, how to best present the UN to Americans. That's why Mulet's blame-the-Haitians line doesn't work: nearly anyone who hears what happens thinks the UN should apologize, and try to help the families of those killed. This song will continue to be developed. Watch this site.

   

After UN's Ladsous Met Sudan's Bashir, Now DSG Jan Eliasson Did It, Without Telling ICC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- After UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous met with International Criminal Court indictee Omar al Bashir last year and Inner City Press repeatedly asked about it, a diplomat supportive of ICC told Inner City Press the new standard was or would be for the UN to check with the ICC before such contacts.

  On December 11, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told Inner City Press that the ICC had not been told before Ladsous' meeting with Bashir.

   After the Financial Times reported on February 2 from the African Union summit in Addis Ababa that Bashir "met UN deputy secretary-general Jan Eliasson for an hour or so in private," UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq was breathlessly asked and said, " I was informed that he followed all the appropriate procedures in terms of having the meeting."

  But what did that mean? There was at first no follow up. So Inner City Press, after asking about US official Victoria Nuland's leaked audio about UN political chief Jeffrey Feltman, asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on this question on the International Criminal Court and the procedures for UN contacts with indictees. Back in July there was a meeting between Under Secretary-General [Hervé] Ladsous and Omer al-Bashir. And I’ve spoken to Fatou Bensouda, and she said that they were not contacted in that case. I wanted to know, just sort of yes or no, is that… In the answer you gave on the Deputy Secretary-General, are you saying that before meeting someone indicted, like Omar al-Bashir, the UN is supposed to check with the ICC or inform them in advance?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: No, what I said is that any such meetings have to be on the basis of operational necessity. And that was the case for both the meeting that was held by the Deputy Secretary-General and also with regard to the meeting by Under-Secretary-General Ladsous.

Inner City Press: Who makes that determination? They ask OLA? Or each individual makes his own-

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: The Office for Legal Affairs is routinely consulted on any of these particular meetings, yes.

   So under the new chief of OLA, the UN is saying it does NOT have to check with the ICC. Is this backsliding? What will those ICC proponents do? Seems like it's time for a briefing by OLA, or by DSG Eliasson, since Ladsous has been allowed to refuse to answer questions. We'll have more on this.

  December background: When on Sudan the International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda briefed the UN Security Council on Wednesday, about the need to arrest Sudanese president Omar al Bashir, there was an elephant in the room: UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who met with Bashir in July.

  Actually, Ladsous had been in the Security Council in the morning, but unlike the other two briefers did not speak to or take any questions from the press when he left.

  Bensouda said that either Sudan could come contest the indictment of Bashir (and others including Ahmad Haroon, to whom Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping has given free flights to and from Abyei) -- or, arrests should be made. Ladsous made no arrests in July.

  After Wednesday's meeting, Inner City Press waited and asked Bensouda what she as prosecutor thought of UN official Ladsous having met with Bashir.

  Bensouda said, "we are consistently saying that these non essential meetings should be avoided.... I do not know what was the purpose of that meeting."

  She cited a UN policy -- put out by the Office of Legal Affairs but apparently not respected by Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations -- of only essential meetings being held with indictees.

  Inner City Press asked her if, as a major / vocal state party to the Rome Statute told it, the UN is now going to give the Court or Association of State Parties prior notice before contacts like Ladsous' with Bashir.

  Bensouda replied that she wouldn't call it notice, but "we have discussed some visits before, why it was essential."

  So, Inner City Press asked, what about Ladsous' July 2013 meeting with Bashir?

  Bensouda said, "the one in July, we have not had any information about it."

  Ladsous has a history, of not answering Press questions.Video here, UK coverage here. But this is one he should answer. Will he?

  Sudanese Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, after harshly criticizing Bensouda in his speech in the Council, agreed to answer a few Inner City Press questions afterward in the so called Turkish Lounge next to the Security Council. 

 While this used to be the media's space, during the UN renovation the UN took money from Turkey for the space. Now, it is said, reporters can only go there if invited by a diplomat. This is challenged by the new Free UN Coalition for Access as a decline in working conditions and access under this UN.

  Wednesday as noted Inner City Press was invited into the Turkish Lounge area, but nevertheless was told to get back in the penned stakeout. (In noting this, the focus is not on the one endeavoring to implement the vague policy, but on the policy and vagueness themselves, which are an invitation, too often accepted, for more UN double standards.)

    Meanwhile scribes favored by -- and spying for -- the UN and its Censorship Alliance (click here) plop down in the Turkish Lounge to make cell phone calls.

  Likewise while disfavored NGOs are told they cannot be at the stakeout, last week Human Rights Watch's UN lobbyist, a former France 24 and Le Monde journalist, was at the stakeout spinning Central African Republic, with no mention of its problems' French colonial roots. As Sudan says: double standards. As Inner City Press says: Ladsous is the elephant in the room. Watch this site.

   

UN Contradicts Claim That No Mission Was Involved in Samsung TVs to UNCA: South Korea Was; Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 -- The day before the UN refused to disclose how much it is paying France under a non-public "letter of assist" for airfield services in northern Mali, Inner City Press asked it about a donation of Samsung televisions.

  Inner City Press had been sent by a whistleblower, and published, the following from the November 25 minutes of the United Nations Correspondents Association, with which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon exclusively partners (and leaders of which tried to expel Inner City Press, including for its reporting on Sri Lanka and conflicts of interest)

"There was discussion about whether or not UNCA should receive a donation from Samsung and whether or not a Mission was involved. DPI was able to clarify the donation information, which does not involve a mission. This note was received: This is to confirm that once we get the donations from Samsung to the UN, DPI will loan a TV screen to UNCA to replace one of your old ones."

  This turns out not to be accurate, specifically the statement that the donation "does not involve a mission."

  In fact, as the UN put in its written answer 26 hours later to Inner City Press' December 9 question:

"The new Samsung sets in the UNCA room were donated by Samsung to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations. The Mission then donated them to the Department of Public Information (DPI) and DPI is loaning them to UNCA."

  It is false, then, that the donation does not "involve" a mission. In fact, the South Korea mission got the TVs from Samsung, gave them to the UN which then loaned them to UNCA. The South Korean mission is right in the middle.

  A defender of the dubious deal has written to Inner City Press claiming that despite the minutes not reflecting any vote, one was in fact taken. But was it based on the false information included in the minutes? Who voted how? Even the list of those voting is not included in the minutes.

Here is what Inner City Press asked the UN on December 9:

Inner City Press: is there a comprehensive place to go to see what donations the UN receives from corporations? In particular, I’m asking about what I understand to be a donation of television screens or sets from Samsung and I wanted to know, what are the rule applicable to these donations? Is the UN aware of pretty serious organizing drive in South Korea about occupational diseases at Samsung? What are the rules applicable and is there a database of such contributions?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’ll check, Matthew.

Twenty six hours later, after insisting to Inner City Press that even the amount it pays to France in Mali under a letter of assist it now acknowledges but will not make public, the UN sent this to Inner City Press:

Subject: In response to your question yesterday on corporate donations to the UN
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

In response to your question yesterday on corporate donations to the UN, here is what the Office of Legal Affairs and Controller's Office can say:

In accordance with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations, the UN can and does accept voluntary contributions, in cash and in kind, from governments, from non-governmental entities (e.g., associations, corporations, including those for-profit and not-for-profit), and individuals, provided that the purposes for which the contributions are made are consistent with the policies, aims and activities of the United Nations, and provided further that the acceptance of voluntary contributions that directly or indirectly involve additional financial liability for the United Nations require approval of the General Assembly (see Financial Regulation 3.12 and Financial Rule 103.4).

Normally, the Controller signs all the agreements for voluntary contributions after ensuring that there is no additional financial liability and that the envisaged activity to be funded from the contribution is in line with the programmatic mandated activity of the Organization. However, this authority is also delegated to several responsible officials in offices away from Headquarters, for their respective jurisdictions, subject to adherence to the financial regulations and rules.

Direct cash contributions to the United Nations from corporations are extremely rare. In-kind contributions of goods and services are more prevalent and are usually made in response to a natural disaster, such as in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. The new Samsung sets in the UNCA room were donated by Samsung to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations. The Mission then donated them to the Department of Public Information (DPI) and DPI is loaning them to UNCA.

The United Nations is not in a position to disclose information on the contribution of individual donors in view of confidentiality requirements provided in some of the contribution agreements. However, the volume of contributions, including contributions for specified and non-specified purposes, are reported on the website of the UN System Chief Executives Board. The following link http://www.unsceb.org/content/statistics provides very useful information not only for the United Nations but also the entire UN system organizations.

  The answer is appreciated and we will report on it more. But we highlight: "The new Samsung sets in the UNCA room were donated by Samsung to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations. The Mission then donated them to the Department of Public Information (DPI) and DPI is loaning them to UNCA."

What then of UNCA's leadership's claim that the donation "does not involve a mission"? A re-coronation of Pamela Falk of CBS as the 2014 president of UNCA,now known as the UN Censorship Alliance, is set for next week. 

  A second midnight defense has been mounted, that Falk has not "done anything" to anyone, or even spoken badly. Well, the UNCA trolls are attributable to her, including under command responsibility.  In 2013, she was asked to reign in those UNCA "leaders" who used the organization to try to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, as they descended into anonymous trolling social media accounts, counterfeiting the new Free UN Coalition for Access and then Inner City Press.

  Falk's reaction in an on the record meeting was to demand that she not be written about, despite having sought this position, and putting herself forward at every opportunity to ask softball questions the answers to which are most often not published anywhere. Audio here, here and here.

  The United Nations Correspondents Association election also involves indicters and purported judges, and the Reuters successor to the scribe who spied (click here for that). That spying for the UN was done by UNCA first vice president and has not been addressed or acted on in any way. Such an organization is in no position to preach on ethics, journalistic or any other kind.

Now this UNCA is poised to raise money, $250 a plate, for an event Ban Ki-moon is set to attend, after fielding softball questions two days earlier from his hosts (or censors). Can you say, conflict of interest? And this is another way that senior UN officials remain unaccountable. Watch this site.

Watch this site.

   

On Haiti Cholera, UN Envoy Sandra Honore Defers to UN Legal Division, Patricia O'Brien Still Around

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 28 -- When the UN's new envoy to Haiti Sandra Honore came to take questions on Wednesday, there was an obvious one to be asked. 

  Inner City Press asked her about the UN's dismissal of claims it brought cholera to Haiti and whether this undermined the UN's credibility in the country (and elsewhere). Video here, from Minute 0:33.

  Sandra Honore was prepared, rattled off statistics about the country's three year need for $443 million, 47% of which has been pledged, but then added that she was not in the position to add more, that the issue is being dealt with in the Legal Division at UN Headquarters and that it is not the practice of the UN to discuss in public such claims.

Yes, this undermines the UN's credibility. The UN preaches about accountability, and transparency. Then when accused of bringing in a disease, negligently, which has killed over 8,000 people, the UN said it cannot discuss the claims in public.

  Since the Office of Legal Affairs has already dismissed the claims, to say they are being dealt with there might imply the UN knows it is going to be sued. What will new OLA chief from Portugal do? What will he say? 

  Sources in OLA tell Inner City Press he is taking on many staff from his predecessor Patricia O'Brien. There's talk of a less than transparent extension for Ms. O'Brien, who most thought had left, and some last minute deals. We'll have more on this.

  Inner City Press also asked Sandra Honore about the delay, after she was nominated, in being accepted as UN Envoy by the Martelly government. In responding Sandra Honore took the high road, saying she began on July 15 and has been working hard.

  In terms of process, there may be hard work in UN Headquarters but the audio quality and volume of questions asked at the UN Security Council, even with a boom microphone, was sub-standard, not only for Inner City Press but for the other journalist who asked questions. 

 The Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info, has asked the question "why" to the UN official in charge, Stephane Dujarric, to UN TV and to Team People, the low-bidding UN contractor. So far, no response. Ah, accountability. Watch this site.

   

On Internship in UN for Sale, Spokesperson Nesirky Said Modified, DPI Says "Hurts UN;" No More Questions?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 7 -- The auctioning of an internship in the UN for over $20,000 was exposed by Inner City Press on May 1 and asked about since then, for four days in a row. But UN spokesman Martin Nesikry on May 6 complained to Inner City Press he was answering "for the umpteenth time."

  Four days of questions is not "umpteenth," which by definition must be more than twelve.

  And on the fifth day, May 7, Nesirky ended the briefing abruptly, amid a question about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Syria chemical weapons prober Ake Sellstrom, video here. 

  So Inner City Press could not answer an obvious follow up about the internship, which is still being auctioned, under photograph of UN Headquarters.

On May 6, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: this internship at the UN question, just one follow-up. I have spoken this morning with a P5 member of the Security Council who suggested that the UN’s remedy may be to not allow someone who wins the internship for $26,000 to actually come in. I am not aware of that being something the UN could do. What’s the UN’s thinking? Is there any update? Can you respond to the suggestion by a mission to the UN that that’s what the UN either could or should do?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, just to repeat, for the umpteenth time, Matthew, that the internship being auctioned off on this website, charitybuzz.com, is not a United Nations internship. The details of the internship in question have been amended on the website to clarify that the internship is not with the United Nations. And, as we have said repeatedly — and I just said just now — internships at the United Nations are not for sale and they cannot be put up for auction.

Inner City Press: So, when it says a way to learn how the UN works and to get your foot in the door, does that mean a foot in the door with a particular NGO or with the UN system?

Spokesperson: As I have said, Matthew, internships at the United Nations are not up for sale and the details of the internship in question have been amended on the website.

  Inner City Press wrote about the scandal, again, on the evening of May 6 (it was another of Inner City Press' pieces that night with which Nesirky took issue on May 7, taking out a print out and reading from it, video here.)

  Then on the morning of May 7 the head of Outreach for the UN Department of Public Information Maher Nasser took out his own print out, of the auction ad as amended, and said "this hurts the UN." Video here, from Minute 2:05. He said it now "in the media."

  The ad says the auction benefits the RFK Young Leaders, a part of the RFK Center, whose press contact Meaghan E. Baron did not respond to detailed messages left by the Press on both of her listed numbers. 

  Nasser said the UN will not necessarily let in the person who wins the internship (currently m. alam for $26,000), "because we control the process" -- precisely what Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the day before.

  If Nesirky had not so abruptly ended the briefing, it might have been possible to get his gloss on what seems to be a split between DPI and the UN Office of Legal Affairs under Patricia O'Brien. They have had the case since May 1, but the image of the UN, and the language about "foot in the door," remain in the ad.

  We'll have more on the Office of Legal Affairs tomorrow. Watch this site.