Wrap Up I: An UNGA of Kerry's Awkward Moment, Obama & Raul, China's Checkbook, Restrictions on Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- As the UN removes its maze of metal detectors until next year, and New York City traffic flows up First Avenue again, what did this week's UN General Assembly debate come down to?

   Perhaps the moment of the week was US Secretary of State John Kerry finding Syria's Walid Moualem in the clubhouse of the Security Council's Permanent Five members, then looking around for another place to pass time. (Inner City Press first tweeted it, here.)

 While Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov then made back to back statements at the Security Council stakeout without taking any questions, the next day October 1 Lavrov took an hour worth of questions, in the UN Press Briefing Room.

  This UN Press Briefing Room became a battleground, with Brazil trying to follow France in reserving the front rows for its diplomats rather than journalists - they relented- and France innovating, in its way, by using seat-holders who rose to their feet to cede their place to French minister Laurent Fabius and, in one case, Segolene Royal.

   Fabius scowled when Inner City Press asked “his” President Francois Hollande about French soldiers rapes in the Central African Republic and UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous linking rapes to “R&R.” Then on October 1Fabius refused to take a Press question whether Turkey's airstrikes on Kurds met the three conditions he had just announced.

   Ladsous, apparently angrier than usual at the question to Hollande, scowled up at the photo booths during the Peacekeeping Summit, then directed his flunkies to control the UN microphone at the cramped third floor UNTV stakeout, to the extent of Banning a question to Mali's foreign minister. On that, we'll have more.

  This too: Turkey used the UN Press Briefing Room for a staged “press conference” where it chose the question in advance then told Inner City Press, when it asked a follow-up, not to “interfere.” The old UN Correspondents Association, typically, did nothing about this (instead they lured the Syrian Coalition's Khaled Khoja into their clubhouse from which no livestream or comments on journalists' arrest in Turkey ever emerged); the new Free UN Coalition for Access fought this and other forms of UN decay.

  As if in a parallel world, China made a number of financial commitments -- $2 billion to a South-South fund, money to UN women, training to the African Union - and drew praise in later General Assembly speeches, which were increasingly ill-attended. Once US President Obama left, after the briefest of photo ops with Russia's Vladimir Putin and a longer one with Raul Castro, much of the security was withdrawn and the air came out of the balloon.

 The UN again closed its big cafeteria, in which food workers were told to dine in a separate room, and after a week of speeches about transparency refused to answer the Press even on how many candidates there are to head the UN refugees agency UNHCR, and who is heading the panel to make the recommendation. We'll have more on this.
   

Inner City Press Asks Cuba's FM of US' 25 Miles Rule, He Says It's Modified; On Haiti

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 29 -- For years, the US has restricted to within 25 miles of New York City not only Cuban diplomats but also UN staff members who are Cuban nationals. 

On September 29, Inner City Press asked Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla about the status of this 25 mile rule. Video here. He replied that for the ten years he lived in Manhattan he was subject to it, adding that it has been modified so that principal officers are not only restricted, and others give notice of such travel. But what about Cuban UN staff?

  (Inner City Press also asked Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla if Cuba believes the UN should pay compensation to the families of people killed by the cholera the UN is accused of bringing to the island. His reply was about Cuba's medical commitment, here.) 

On September 29, this was Cuba's read-out of the Raul Castro - Obama meeting:

“Raul Castro Ruz, President of the Councils of State and of Ministers, met this Tuesday with Barack Obama, President of the United States, in the context of the High Level Segment of the Seventieth Session of the UN General Assembly.

“During the meeting, which was held in a respectful and constructive climate, both dignitaries exchanged their views on the visits paid by His Holiness Pope Francis to Cuba and the United States. They agreed on the need to work on the agenda that both countries will be discussing in the next few months as part of the process toward the normalization of relations.

“In particular, both Presidents discussed issues related to cooperation in mutually beneficial areas and in third countries, as it is the case in Haiti. The dialogue on bilateral and multilateral issues and the solution of problems that are still pending between both nations.

“President Raul Castro reiterated that for Cuba and the United States to be able to have normal relations, the blockade that has caused damages and hardships to the Cuban people and affects the interests of American citizens should be lifted, and added that other issues that are harmful to the sovereignty of Cuba should also be resolved.

"The Cuban President ratified Cuba's willingness to work in order to build a new type of relation between Cuba and the United States based on respect and sovereign equality."

Back on August 4 Inner City Press asked the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about it:

Inner City Press: On the host country agreement, I wanted to ask whether, given the new re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba, whether Cuban nationals who work for the UN are still subject to a 25-mile restriction outside of New York.

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Again, that’s a question to ask the US authorities.  This is not a restriction that is imposed by the United Nations.  It’s a question of the bilateral relations between those two countries.

Inner City Press:  Right.  But given the UN speaks up about restrictions on travel on its staff in countries likes Sudan and don’t ask Sudan if they’re restricting our staff, I’m asking you are UN staff members who are nationals of Cuba still restricted within 25 miles, as a UN question?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  No, that’s a question actually of US policy.  Does the US policy make that restriction?  Please ask the US Government on that.  That’s not something that’s put upon anyone by us.

  Again, this misses the point. When Sudan or other countries imposes restrictions on the movement of UN staff, the UN (sometimes) speaks up. To say, ask the country imposing the restriction on UN staff makes no sense, or is craven. We'll have more on this.

 Back on July 1, on the day the US' Jeffrey DeLaurentis handed President Barack Obama's letter to Raul Castro, setting July 20 for the re-opening of embassies, Inner City Press asked a Cuban diplomat in New York if the restrictions on him, and on Cuban UN staff, to stay within 25 miles of Columbus Circle would remain in place.

  Yes, was the reply, with a shaking of the head. How this is legal under the Host Country Agreement between the US and UN is not clear. But the UN says nothing about it.

  Later on July 1, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement welcoming the move, but saying nothing about the US' restrictions not only on Cuban diplomats but also on UN staff of Cuban nationality, who work for Ban. Ah, leadership. Ban said (with the bracketed word "more" crossed out) --

"The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement today that Cuba and the United States will reopen embassies in Havana and Washington, D.C.. The restoration of diplomatic ties is an important step on the path toward the normalization of relations.

"In keeping with the principles of its founding Charter, the United Nations supports efforts to promote [more] harmonious and good neighbourly relations among States. The Secretary-General hopes that this historic step will benefit the peoples of both countries."

  Back on April 1 as talks continued between Cuba and the US, including in Havana on telecommunications, Inner City Press on April 1 asked the UN to confirm that Cuban nationals who are UN staff members are for now required to seek prior approval before venturing more than 25 miles from Columbus Circle in Manhattan. 

  While the UN openly complains when restricted in certain other countries, this restriction it refuses to confirm or discuss. From the UN's April 1 transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about UN staff's ability to travel more than 25 miles outside of New York... I'd like you to comment on whether Cuban staff, i.e., employed by the UN, but from Cuba, are subject to that restriction, and what the Secretariat has done either historically or recently to oppose that, and your position on the legality of the host country limiting UN staff to a certain distance from Manhattan. 

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  As you know, there's a Convention on the privileges and immunities of UN and associated staff, so I would just refer to you that.  So for any problems that we have in any of the countries where we operate, we take them up with the local authorities, and in this case, it would also be an issue for the Host Country Committee.

Inner City Press:  Right, but can we either now or later today just get an answer from the UN, maybe it's OHRM or OLA, are you aware, because I am, of restrictions imposed by the host country on UN staff members from particular countries, and what's your position on that?  [overlapping talking]

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Like I said, our position is in line with the Convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations and associated staff.  So we have that as a clear point.  And then if we have concerns with any countries, we take them up at different levels.  And like I said, in this case, sometimes there would be issues for the Host Country Committee and we'd take it up there.

Inner City Press:  I'm just wondering, can the UN not say whether it has staff members based here in New York who are restricted from traveling?

Deputy Spokesman:  Whenever we have any concerns, we take them up with the authorities as need be, including with the Host Country Committee.  

   Back on March 26 Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke about US limitations on Cuban diplomats. From the State Department transcript:

Inner City Press:  Cuba has complained that its diplomats accredited to the UN in New York are not allowed to go more than 25 miles outside of the city or from Columbus Circle.  And I wanted to know whether this restriction is one of the things that’s being negotiated.  Is it considered being lifted?  Is it – where does it stand, and how do – and what’s the U.S. – given that generally people accredited to the UN can travel freely, how does the U.S. justify it?

MR. RATHKE:  Well, we’ve said from the very start of our rounds of talks with the Cuban Government that one of the topics we want to discuss is the ability of American diplomats in Cuba to move around freely and, of course, the Cubans have a similar concern.  I’m not going to get into the state of those discussions, but that’s clearly a topic that we’ve been talking about over the last few rounds.

  Rathke went on to say it is part of the negotiations. 

 Back on March 13, after Cuba came out in strong defense of Venezuela after US President Obama's executive order, the US was disappointed but not surprised, a senior State Department official told reporters on a background call.

   Inner City Press wondered from the UN, what of the US' requirement that Cuban diplomats -- and even Cuban UN staff members -- must stay without 25 miles of Columbus Circle in Manhattan? 

  Will that restriction, which seems contrary to the Host Country Agreement between the US and UN and the Vienna Conventions, be removed? 

   Currently in charge of the US' “interest section” is Jeffrey Delaurentis, formerly with the US Mission to the UN. What does he say about the 25 mile restriction? And how might he fare in a nomination process in the US Senate? Watch this site.

   

On SDGs, Cuba's Raul Castro on Embargo, Chinese President Xi's $2 Billion Pledge Praised by Evo, Sudan's Bashir Absent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 -- Among the Sustainable Development Goals speeches in the UN General Assembly Hall on September 26, China's Xi Jinping grabbed headlines with a $2 billion pledge for a South - South development fund.

 This was praised, less than an hour later, by Bolivia's Evo Morales in a press conference elsewhere in the UN; Inner City Press asked Morales about sovereign debt restructuring, which new GA President Mogens Lykketoft on September 25 told Inner City Press will NOT be dealt with in the UN's walls, a position contrary to the views and votes of the Group of 77.

  Raul Castro said the US embargo is holding back Cuba's development; Iran's Hassan Rouhani said the nuclear deal will be good for the environment. Lebanon raised the problem of being classified as a middle income country, which Inner City Press has asked UN officials from Sigrid Kaag to outgoing UNHCR chief Antonio Guterres about (who will take the post from Guterres, and their view and action on this, is the subject of an ongoing Inner City Press series, also involving Lykketoft and his fellow Dane, former Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt.

   Sudan's Foreign Minister conveyed the greeting of Omar al-Bashir, of whom wire(s) reported, probably knowing even at the time it was false, that he would visit New York despite his indictment for genocide by the International Criminal Court. There is a lot of made-up news around the UN, especially now. And we're on the look out for it.

 These Sustainable Development Goals, to which a session of the UN General Assembly is devoted, are being promoted in videos, flags, projections on the UN buildings.

  Inner City Press on September 4 asked film-maker Richard Curtis and Amina Mohammed, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on Post-2015 Development Planning about this campaign, and if it will raise the issue of who will PAY for implementation of the goals -- including if the corporate partners of the campaign are in fact paying or avoiding their taxes.

  To Amina Mohammed and DPI's Cristina Gallach, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked when the UN will have a Freedom of Information Act. Video here.

Earlier on September 3 when the International Monetary Fund resumed its biweekly embargoed media briefings, Inner City Press submitted four questions. Inner City Press asked:

"Who from the IMF is coming to the UN General Assembly (and SDGs, etc) week in late September, and what is their program? What meeting will they participate in? What do they hope to accomplish?"

IMF Deputy Spokesperson William Murray answered, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro:

“Matthew, and others, the Managing Director is scheduled to attend the UNGA particularly the SDGs segment in late September. There was a previous meeting in Addis Ababa we participated in at a high level that dealt with the SDGs... The IMF's Executive Board recently endorsed a 50% increase in access to all the funds concessional lending facilities and to maintain a 0% rate for low income countries that struggle with disasters and conflict. The Executive Board of the Fund has endorsed IMF's engagement in sustainable inclusive growth, on which we'll be elaborating in the weeks and months to come.”

  One focus should be financial inclusion, on which we'll have more during UNGA week.

 In the meanwhile, Murray also said Managing Director Christine Lagarde is about to arrive in Ukraine for "opportunistic" meetings with the authorities, and an IMF mission team will go there on September 22.

  On September 3, Inner City Press also submitted questions about Nepal and Grenada, as well as this:

"In Indonesia the Vice Speaker of the House of Representatives Taufik Kurniawan recently said, 'We do not ask for IMF support in crisis;' at the UN in NY on Sept 2, the Vice Chairman of the House of Representatives of Indonesia H. Fadli Zon told Inner City Press much the same thing. What is the IMF's response to these criticisms or resistance to the IMF, from elected representatives of the country where the IMF now plans its 2018 Annual Meetings?"

  We hope to receive answers.

  Back on July 8 when the International Monetary Fund released reviews and papers about the United States, complete with support of the Dodd Frank Act and mentions of anti money laundering protection Inner City Press asked about the proposal to raise the definition of Systemically Important Financial Institution from $50 billion up to $500 billion and if tight AML strictures are to blame for cutting off remittances to Somalia.

  Aditya Narain, IMF mission chief for the Financial Sector Assessment Program and deputy director, Monetary and Capital Markets department, told Inner City Press that the IMF believes such definition should give predictability, but should be based on risk and not necessarily only asset size.

  Narain told Inner City Press, "On the first one, our general belief is that supervisory approaches should be risk based, and therefore the materiality and proportionality of institutions should be taken into account for to develop supervisory frameworks. At the same time, we also recognize that it’s important to have some clear rules, regarding a unit, in this case size of institutions, because not only does it set a baseline of expectations, but it also provides a useful framework for people to anchor their expectations on. So that’s why, in a sense we would agree that it’s important to make these approaches risk based and therefore not dependent on size alone. I should add also, that our only political ideology is financial stability, for the purpose of this exercise.

  But will this be used FOR the Senator Richard Shelby draft bill?

  On remittances, Aditya Narain said it is an important question but one that the IMF is dealing with in other venues; it apparently wasn't raised to the US during this process. Why not?

 Narain told Inner City Press, "On the regulatory question, this is an issue which is being discussed in several forums where the IMF has been participating, and this is an issue not just for the US, although it has been most discussed in the context of the US, but the effects of the AML on remittances and the result, the stringent adherence to standards has led to a concern more globally that might be affecting the flow of remittances to those jurisdictions... where such remittances and the channels through which they flow are more important. We have not discussed this... there is work ongoing in the Fund, including in collaboration with other institutions like the World Bank... and we expect to be able to have more information on this in a few months time."

   In the embargoed media conference call, two questions in a row went to the Financial Times, which opined that the IMF report takes the side of the Democratic Party. The IMF disagreed. The IMF said, in writing, “As the epicenter of the global financial crisis that began in 2008, the United States passed a major law in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act, to reform its financial system. Officials need to complete the rulemaking under the law, while parts of reform agenda face legislative proposals to water them down.”

   Central Banking asked two questions and Reuters one, on federal insurance regulation.  Watch this site.