UN Won't Confirm to ICP Ban's Trip to DRC & Rwanda, Secrecy for Secrecy's Sake?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 -- A week ago the UN refused to confirm to Inner City Press that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would travel to Mozambique, even though UNICEF announced it.

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask if you can confirm that the Secretary-General was traveling to Mozambique. The reason I ask, I know you sometimes say, or you often say that travel…

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: No, probably always.

Inner City Press: But in this case, UNICEF and, and other UN agencies are the source of the report, so I am thinking maybe, either do they not follow that policy or is that-

Spokesperson: Well, typically, as you know, the Secretary-General’s travels are announced by me or by others at Headquarters. And so, if and when we have an announcement to make, we will make it, okay?

  Today, Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey finally confirmed the Mozambique trip, from May 20 to 22.

   But when Inner City Press asked him about Ban's trip to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which the MONUSCO peacekeeping mission has already announced, Del Buey refused to confirm it. Video here, from Minute 8:40. 

  What possibly can be achieved by this lack of transparency, this secrecy for secrecy's sake?

Inner City Press is informed that Ban and World Bank president Jim Kim will also travel to Rwanda. One assumes that the World Bank will confirm it. Could Ban learn from them?

Last year, Inner City Press was threatened when it reported that reclusive UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous would travel to Damascus, even though it was a Security Council Permanent Representative, from a Permanent Five member no less, who had said it.

The level of pomp and faux secrecy at the UN has been on the increase. But is anything more being accomplished? Watch this site.

Secrecy Increased at UNSC on Afghan and Yemen Plans, Mind Reading Not Possible

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- Will the UN Security Council make a formal visit to Afghanistan, and a less formal mini-trip to Yemen? Due to security concerns, those questions will not be answered in this piece, which followed up yesterday afternoon's report.

  Rather, the focus here is on some on the Security Council's approach to secrecy and press coverage. After yesterday's piece, when the Council reconvened Wednesday afternoon all "outside parties" were barred from the meeting, including the UN's envoy to Yemen Jamal Benomar. The emphasis was on "no leaks" of the Council's travel plans.

If and when a request for confidentiality is made, Inner City Press respects it. But it is not possible to read minds, particularly not the minds of 15 delegations (and a UN Secretariat that pulls in different ways) all at once.

After yesterday's piece, it was conveyed to Inner City Press that one reason that individual officials of various countries have been able to visit Afghanistan, and to a less degree parts of Yemen, is that there is no advance notice of their arrival.

Frankly, it is difficult for fifteen countries to keep something secret. But if that is what the Security Council wants to try to do, maybe they shouldn't hold their meetings about the trips in the Council consultation room, which the Press goes to cover for news ranging from Syria to Sudan and Haiti.

In fact, more than one source said that some are trying to use the "leaking" of information about the possible trips as a way to get out of them. "Some members don't want to go to Yemen," a source said. "And so they use this."

Wednesday afternoon things became surreal. During the morning session, Inner City Press reported that Turkey's Permanent Representative Apakan and entourage went into the Council and Apakan afterward exclusively told Inner City Press that it was "shell related." In the afternoon, after the return of fire, interest grew in what might happen in the closed -- very closed -- Council consultations. Some even tied the Security Council's Wednesday afternoon meeting with one of NATO and surmised that the meeting was barred to staff due to Syria. But it wasn't. Watch this site.

Footnote: Who was driving Wednesday's secrecy? Starr is known to desire, but not ask in advance, for secrecy about trips. And the host country, as once before, seemed very interested in with whom staff speak -- this time, eight days after President Obama's speech about freedom of the press. We may have more on this.