Showing posts with label sole source. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sole source. Show all posts

Monday, July 7, 2014

On Sole Source Contract in Syria, UN Tells Inner City Presss to "Ask OPCW," As On Veolia Violations in Texas


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 7 -- At its 42nd meeting, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons' Executive Council asked that OPCW's Director-General start preparatory work for the conclusion of a contract without calling for tenders, quotations, or proposals with a commercial company" to destroy 12 chemical weapons production facilities in Syria. Here, at Paragraph 4.2

   That is a set-aside or sole source contract. Inner City Press on July 7, since OPCW-UN Joint Mission head Sigrid Kaag was not in New York but rather Cyprus asked UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq to explain why a sole source contract would be used.  Video here.

  Back on June 8, Haq did not permit Inner City Press to asked OPCW's Kaag a question. But on July 7 on the set aside contract he said, Ask OPCW.

   Inner City Press asked, isn't some money that the UN raised or helped raise to be used for this sole source contract? Haq referred to Kaag's previous reporting, and reiterated, Ask OPCW. Video here.



OPCW on June 8 announced:
The Norwegian vessel Taiko, which is participating in the multinational maritime operation to remove chemicals from Syria, departed today for Finland and the United States to deliver its cargo of chemicals for destruction in those countries.”
  Unsaid, and UNanswered, is that the destination in the US is Port Arthur, Texas, specifically a facility of the France-based multinational Veolia which has recently been fined for negligent chemical destruction practices.
   Maybe that negligence can be distinguished from Veolia's upcoming work. But the UN and OPCW have refused to answer the question.
   On June 4 when Sigrid Kaag came to take questions about the UN - OPCW Weapons mission in Syria, no question was taken about violations by OPCW contractor Veolia. 
 The UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq gave questions, all in a row, to Al Arabiya, BBC, Fox and Al Jazeera. At the noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Veolia's violations in Texas. He said to ask OPCW.  The request that OPCW probe in Ukraine reports of the use of chemicals including chloroform in Odessa remains unacted on. 
   The question of why the OPCW  chose to dispose of Syria's chemical weapons a company Veolia which does business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, first raised by Inner City Press on February 15, was finally put to Sigrid Kaag on May 8, 2014.
  She told Inner City Press to "ask the OPCW," which ran the tender. 
  Now the OPCW's report to the Security Council, to be issued as a document of the Security Council under symbol S/2014/368 (OPCW EC-M-42/DG.1) says "from 30 April to 2 May, a visit took place in the United States at the Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., in Port Arthur, Texas, selected for the disposal of Priority 2 inorganic chemicals through the solicitation process conducted by the OPCW."
   But we now report and link to: Veolia's Port Arthur facility has been fined $13, 500 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for repeated carbon monoxide emission violations. Click here for the report, which cites other problems with equipment.
Background: In the OPCW tender, 14 companies submitted bids. On February 14 the OPCW told the press there were two winners:
Ekokem OY AB (Finland)
Veolia Environmental Services Technical Solutions, LLC (U.S.A.)
   Veolia stands accused of illegal operations in the occupied Palestinian territories, including waste disposal in the illegally occupied Jordan valley, North of the Yafit settlement; waste water treatment in the illegal Israeli settlement of Modi’in Illit; bus service to illegal settlements and Jerusalem Light Rail / tramway. h/t In April 2010 the UN Human Rights Council declared the tramway and its operations to be illegal (A/HRC/RES/13/7 of 14 April 2010).
  So how did the OPCW select Veolia? There was a one page press release sent to the media, "reported" (or merely repeated, without any of the above) by Reuters and others, not mentioning that France, where Veolia is actually headquartered at the parent level, had contributed no money at all to the OPCW or UN trust funds on destroying Syria's chemical weapons.
   On transparency back on February 6, after OPCW-UN mission chief Sigrid Kaag briefed the UN Security Council about Syria chemical weapons, Inner City Press asked her about her Mission's trust funds, as it did back on January 8.
   Inner City Press noted that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons put online a January 24 press release about Canada donated 10 million CAD, but that it had no link to any over-all chart.
  Kaag said, "I knew you'd ask that," and said it should go online soon. Video here and embedded below.  After 6 pm, Inner City Press ran an update with the chart, which shows for example that to the UN Trust Fund, Japan has pledged $9 million -- but has as of yet provided no money.
  In terms of cash, Kaag's native Netherlands has provided more (barely) that the United States:  $2,062,500 versus $2 million from the US.

  The OPCW Trust Fund for Syria is denominated in Euros. The European Union is the largest donor, and several EU members have also contributed in their own name - but not France.
  A separate OPCW Syria Trust Fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons has more in unpaid pledges then monies actually paid. Among those yet to come through are once again Japan, the aforementioned Canada, the EU, Australia, India, Italy and South Korea.
   There is the maritime component (see chart) and then this:
In addition to their contribution to the OPCW trust fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons, Canada contributed another CAD 5 million (almost US$ 4.7 million) for the destruction operations on board the vessel MV Cape Ray. Italy has indicated that the port of Gioia Tauro will be made available for transloading of priority chemicals from the cargo vessels onto the MV Cape Ray. Germany has indicated it will dispose of approximately 370 tons of effluent generated through the hydrolysis of the priority chemicals. The United Kingdom has indicated that it will destroy two binary chemical weapon components at a commercial facility.
    And so the only Permanent Five member of the Security Council not to contribute... is France.


  Inner City Press continues to await from the UN a response to repeated questions submitted about the Joint Mission's chief of staff Abdullah Fadil. Sources say he has asked UNTSO, where he worked before the Joint Mission, to respond in some way. 
  But the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General, which has had these questions in writing since before Christmas 2013, has provided no answers at all. And there are more questions ready, particularly in light of a motion for disclosure to force the SG represented by ALS to give us access to the reports of OIOS, the Ombudsman Office and CDU that has been filed in the UN Dispute Tribunal.
For now, consider the issued raised, below and in this unresponded to follow up question:
"As a follow up to the not-answered [earlier question, see below], please confirm or deny that Michael Antoine has also transferred from UNTSO to the UN-OPCW joint mission on chemical weapons in Syria, but that he is in Cyprus; please explain his duties to jump from FS4 to FS6; please describe the Joint Mission's interview and recruitment practices."
  This question has not been answered; a question Inner City Press submitted about the tension between South Korea and Japan, including in South Sudan, caused by Japan's prime minister's visit to a shrine for the country's World War Two dead was answered in a statement apparently given to other media, on a regional or political basis, 13 hours before today's "first" Note to Correspondents. The Free UN Coalition for Accessis challenging these practices.
   Previously Inner City Press had asked, without answer:
"Please confirm or deny that Abdullah Fadil is with the UN-OPCW joint mission on chemical weapons in Syria, that while at UNTSO he managed to have Ministry of Foreign Affairs cards from both Israel and Lebanon, and separately that he is under investigation by OIOS and/or other UN bodies for recruitment irregularities and SEA."
  Five days later the question has not even been acknowledged, much less answered. Questions submitted and re-submitted to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's top two spokespeople on the morning of December 21, about civilians at risk, have not been acknowledged. 
  By stonewalling, and by the practices described in the below, which are evident elsewhere and to the very top of the UN system, the UN credibility is being damaged. At least questions should be answered.
  While we have more, here's from the underlying whistleblower's initial complaint giving rise to the question, about the current chief of staff of UN - OPCW mission for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in Syria:
I am an avid reader of the Inner City Press. My numerous Missions with the UN can confirm what your many articles state: rampant corruption, nepotism, and recruitment manipulation at all levels in the UN. Sadly, this conduct is only increasing. Within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) it is not "what you know" but it’s "who you know." There is an absolute absence of accountability. It is often said that nobody gets fired unless you are a whistle-blower or suspected of bringing the UN into disrepute by exposing corruption; usually after becoming exasperated trying to deal with it via due process. After speaking to many staff members, I am compelled to report a matter that concerns me. The mission/UN is failing to take action and I feel that it is time that external scrutiny is required.
1. Mr. Abdullah Fadil, a Somali (now Canadian), is a member of the UNTSO Mission in Israel. He is an international staff Member at the level of Director (D1) and occupies the position of Chief Mission Support (CMS). He is the most senior civilian in the mission. As CMS he has control over all administrative functions, most notably, finance, procurement, and recruitment. He previously held similar positions in Kosovo, Khartoum and Darfur... He is well known in the DPKO system and there are numerous allegations against Mr. Fadil presently being investigated by the Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS), Ombudsman Office, and the Complaints and Discipline Unite (CDU). These allegations range from sexual harassment, Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA), to manipulating recruiting to allow friends (internally) and externally to jump recruitment rosters. This includes managing recruiting panels and overseeing the selection process.
All UNTSO staff recruited in the UNTSO Mission in the three years he has been the CMS are either former girlfriends, absolute loyal friends from former missions, or family members. The method of control is to provide the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) with his handpicked short list along with a verbal directive as to whom he wished to be selected. This practice tended to exclude competent staff as he put loyalty to himself as the primary selection criteria. This allowed him to have a foundation of very loyal staff that he could rely upon. Senior managers within the mission could not recruit competent staff. Managers who voiced their concern were either moved sideways or resigned.
4. Due to these many complaints he was asked to take a temporary assignment to Syria (OPCW) to reduce the level of discontent in the mission.
5. The allegations include obstructing an investigation by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) into the fraudulent use of tax free PX fuel cards (Israel) by national staff and some international staff. His obstruction included briefing the suspect prior to being interviewed by investigators. His intent was cover up the extent of the fraud by International Staff (friends) who had aided and abetted the fraud. This allegation also included misuse of duty free products (alcohol) to pay rent in disputed territories.
6. A most egregious act that must be investigated, and which should result in his termination from the UN, is the fraudulent acquisition of a MOFA card from the government of Lebanon. The circumstances are that Mr. Fadil is located in Jerusalem and holds a valid Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) card which grants him residency in Israel. To qualify for this status, one is required to reside/hold residency in that country due to one’s UN official status. The process requires that one file a signed request to the Host Government for a MOFA card as an official of the United Nations. The signature verifies the accuracy of the document and information provided. One must include an address, UN letter of appointment, and photographs. The MOFA card grants certain privileges and benefits as a member of the UN.
In addition to the Israeli MOFA card provided to Mr. Fadil by the Israeli Government, he was recently found to have a MOFA card from the Government of Lebanon. Inquiries confirm that two years ago he fraudulently applied for MOFA status in Lebanon stating that he was a resident in Lebanon. This is not true as he and family reside in Jerusalem. He has also misrepresented himself to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Fadil has been using that same Lebanese MOFA card in Lebanon to obtain benefits. In short, he has two MOFA cards; one for Israel and one Lebanon. When this fraud becomes known to the governments of Israel and Lebanon they might apply a high level of scrutiny to new legitimate applicants. This could have a significant impact on UN staff members and UNMOs applying for MOFA cards within Lebanon and Israel. He has placed us all at disadvantage by giving both governments cause to delay and further investigate applications. He has placed the UN in a difficult position. Hence the cover up.
We will have more. There are a number of other Press questions long-pending in Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson, never responded to, stonewalled. Watch this site.

 
  

Sunday, January 5, 2014

UN Gives Jane Holl Lute a Post on Camp Hurriya in Iraq, Lockheed Martin Sole Source Echo, Filling Kobler's Shoes


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 5 -- It was the day after Christmas that US State Department spokesperson Jan Psaki said, "the United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s rocket attack at Camp Hurriya that has reportedly killed and injured camp residents and also injured Iraqi police officers... we have been in communication with the United Nations Assistant Mission in Iraq, UNAMI."

  And now at 8 am on a Sunday morning 11 days later, UN Secretary General has named an American, the well placed Jane Holl Lute, as the his Special Adviser for relocation of Camp Hurriya residents outside of Iraq."

  As Inner City Press reported exclusively back in 2008 Jane Holl Lute played a large role in the awarding of a sole source contract with Lockheed Martin for "super camps" in Darfur. Ultimately Jane Holl Lute, after the General Assembly except the US voted to express concern about the $250 million set-aside for an American military contractor, agreed that it has caused confusion. Click here for that.

No confusion here: the UN has been pilloried for its deal with the Camp Ashraf and now Camp Hurriya residents. The issue still follows previous UN envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler as he goes on pro-government victory tours of Eastern Congo, and does not answer questions about the impact of withdrawing a full battalion of peacekeepers after pledging to "neutralize" the Hutu FDLR militia.

  So now Ban Ki-moon, as often happens, puts the issue in American hands. Recently the US moved Uighurs out of Guantanamo Bay to Slovakia, and Psaki's deputy Marie Harf fielded questions from Chinese media about the implications, and reciprocity. Is Jane Holl Lute's role to put the "full faith" (and credit?) of the US behind requests to countries to take in the Hurriya residents? Will they turn on her as well? Watch this site.

Footnotes: In December 2013 when Inner City Press exposed and is now pursuing France's non-public "Letter of Assist" payment from the UN and its member states for air field services in northern Mali, French ambassador Gerard Araud said to look other states, and to ask the UN Spokesperson.

  There, simple financial answers -- like, what percentage of UN letter of assist payments do France, Russia, the US and others each get -- have still not been given. This inquiry is a follow up to Inner City Press' previous exposure of the UN's set-aside Darfur contract for Pacific Architects and Engineers, then a subsidiary of the US' Lockheed Martin. Now PAE is no longer with Lockheed, and is "in the game" in Mali.

  Also at issue in Mali are the alleged gang rapes by Chadian UN "peacekeepers," on which UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous has given no update at all. Jane Holl Lute was big on "zero tolerance" when she was at the UN; even since then, on the Minova rapes in the DRC and now in Mali, there has been backsliding. Will Holl Lute do anything on this issue? 

  Ladsous repeatedly says he has a "policy" against answering Inner City Press questions, because of questions Inner City Press asked about his public acts, including 1994 positions on Rwanda. Inner City Press asked Jane Holl Lute if her husband's position on Iraq in the US government might be conflict. She bristled -- but never "pulled a Ladsous." That, is on him. And that the UN now accepts Ladsous' "policy" is indicative of UN decay. The new Free UN Coalition for Access is pushing back. Watch this site.

 
  

Thursday, June 13, 2013

On Syria Death Toll Study OHCHR Explains Sole Source Selection of HRDAG: No Contract, Anonymous Funder UNknown?


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- For the Syria death toll study released today, how did the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights select the San Francisco-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group, which receives its grants through a fiscal conduit, does not list a phone number on its website and is funded by an "anonymous US-based private foundation"?
  Inner City Press asked OHCHR, including in light of itsanswers in January about the first study by Benetech which listed the US National Endowment for Democracy among its funders. Quickly quickly, OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville has responded, comparing HRDAG to Benetech:
From: Rupert Colville [at] ohchr.org
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Hi, Press Q on HRDAG, how selected, etc,
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
They are now a separate non-profit organization, and they very kindly agreed to do it pro bono this time round. Why we chose them is very simple and very obvious: they are one of the leading groups of experts in a very small, highly specialized, field. Some of their key people have more than 20 years' experience in doing this type of analysis of casualties in conflicts, and other human rights related data. They are also well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. They have also done work for truth and reconciliation commissions, and international and domestic criminal tribunals, among others.
When it comes to Syria, they now have very specialized capabilities indeed, given the large amount of input from a Syrian language expert into the technical efforts and computer programming designed to ensure there is no double counting, mistaking of names etc.
So the criteria for choosing HRDAG were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working with HRDAG have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work. Re funding: we do not have concerns about the fact that HRDAG has other sources of funding -- as you must be aware by now, that is totally normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.
  But what about the anonymous US-based private foundation? And how does OHCHR memorialize any of this selection process if there is "no contract"? Is there at least a letter of some kind and can it be disclosed?

  Since without a contract or documented selection process etc the HRDAG report was put on the OHCHR's web site and is being described as a UN report, would you put up a study submitted by another (non-US-based) NGO? What would the process be? Does OHCHR know who the anonymous US-based donor paying for this work is? If so, will OHCHR disclose the identity? If not, why not? OHCHR has been asked. Watch this site.

UN's New Syria Fatality Report Is By SF-Based HRDAG, Spun Out of Benetech, Still with Anonymous US-based Funder




By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Amid the slaughter in Syria, how does the UN count the dead? 
  Today's announcement of at least 93,000 dead, ascribed tothe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva but compiled by an California-based outside contractor (re) named the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, is worth looking at in terms of authorship.
  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.
  Patrick Ball of Benetech told Inner City Press there had been a Request for Proposals: that is, competition. But soon it emerged that there was no RFP"as such." Two other organizations were approached, but OHCHR would not name them. A strange procurement, to say the least.

  Now, the day before the vote at the Human Rights Council on a Syria resolution sponsored by the US, UK, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey, OHCHR released a new report -- this time, not "formally" by Benetech.
  But even a cursory check based off the first page of the new report finds that the same Patrick Ball who replied to Inner City Press in January for Benetech is the executive director of the "new" contractor Human Rights Data Analysis Group or HRDAG. He is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh.
  At the bottom of the report is the new disclosure: "Formally, HRDAG is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Partners."
  It's a generic name, Community Partners -- but a quick visits finds it to be a sort of conduit which lends its non-profit status to start up. HRDAG is not so much a start up as a spin off -- it is being spun off from Benetech. 
  The report says "In February 2013, HRDAG became an independent organization." Is that because of the exposure of Benetech's funding by the US National Endowment for Democracy? But what has changed?
  HRDAG has as one of three advisers an official from Human Rights Watch. Under Funding it portrays Western government's funding to Benetech as a thing of the past. But even in its present re-incarnation, HRDAG lists as a funder an "anonymous U.S.-based private foundation."

   On Community Partners' board of directors are people from Ameriprise Financial, Mattel and NBC, among others. So did the renamed HRDAG, spun out of US-funded Benetech, get another essentially sole source contract? Why is the UN so sloppy? Why can it not issue its own reports, given its budget? Watch this site.